Hacker News Reader

Comment by projektfu | Hacker News Reader

When I was in England for a short time I was tasked with screening candidates for employment (software engineers). As an American, I was taken aback by most of the resumes including photos. That's just not done here in the US. Some American HR departments might even send back your resume and ask you to resubmit it without a photo. It seems to be standard practice in Europe, perhaps to convince you that the person interviewing is the person associated with the resume.

Of course, attractiveness factors in highly once you get your foot in the door, even if people try to act like it doesn't. Even straight male engineers seem to think more highly of attractive male engineers, just because of the "coolness" factor they may bring. There's really just not a lot of information gleaned from an interview beyond whether the person has the basic minimum knowledge for the field they are in, and these soft things take an outsize portion of the score.

Things may be changing or may be different in big orgs, I don't know. I was only familiar with SME hiring.

View on HN

There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in many studies than biases around gender and ethnicity even.

I don't know why these forms of identity are almost entirely ignored, while we obsess over others.

Imagine if tech companies published the height, weight, and facial symmetry of their workforces, like they do now with race and gender.

Being unattractive is not a protected group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable.

This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected.

But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.

> This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected.

In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose.

For government action under US Constitutional law, it's expressly not the case, but discrimination on other bases has a lower threshold for Constitutional acceptability (rational basis vs. strict/intermediate scrutiny.)

(Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.)

And every group that is now protected was once not protected. Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time?

I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.

> Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time

Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable.

> I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice.

I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.

> I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.

You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected".

Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...).

> Kind of an odd example to use to defend ...

I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality.

Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here...

I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.

Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check.

I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.

> You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that “it’s ok to discriminate against anyone who isn’t protected”.

No, I’m literally not.

In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test.

For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class.

Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not.

Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved?

Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum?

Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?

I worked with a manager who refused to hire a man who had, as his Facebook profile pic, a photo of himself holding a shotgun and deer. He was a hunter.

Kind of a reach to claim the poster is defending prejudice.

Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Society finding you conventionally unattractive and thus passing you over for a promotion at work isn't exactly the same thing. People are discriminated against for lots of reasons, many subconscious, but protected categories didn't emerge from a vacuum. The reason being queer is protected whereas being short or ugly isn't has nothing to do with queer people having more power in government (lol) but because there was a history of actual violence, much of which was state-sanctioned, against queer people.

Then again being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination; having enough money to afford competent legal representation did. I wonder how many Americans can afford that when the majority can't make a $500 emergency expense. I'd argue the poor are the most clearly discriminated against group in our society and clearly there's a history of direct and indirect violence against them on that basis alone, but capitalism requires their existence and so they're invisible to our judicial system.

Well, competent legal representation wouldn't have been much help if you hadn't had some favorable law to call upon, so I suspect you may be wrong that "being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination".

As for the first part of your comment, I'd just like to ask: what is up with disadvantaged groups fighting one another about who's more disadvantaged?

I do agree about poverty; that's a big disadvantage and is often itself the foundation of another prejudice. That's another group that the law fails to protect.

I don’t read anything in GP’s text as defending prejudice, but rather as expressing the reality that judgment (not pre-judgment) is both legal and widely practiced (and frequently helpful or essential in interactions).

If I’m hiring for a programming opening, the entire (and proper) purpose of interviewing is to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers.

Being “not an effective programmer” is not a protected class and discriminating against them is fine when hiring programmers.

“But, but, but that’s not discrimination!” Yes, it most certainly is in the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” sense, and is very likely what GP meant when they wrote:

> Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.

Did you really think that I was suggesting it wasn't ok "to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers"?

I think that's a strawman, but a useful one. It helps to establish the bounds of reasonable judgement in hiring. I think most people will agree that "can't or won't do the job" is reasonable.

I’m struggling to find where else in dragonwriter’s words you could be finding support for prejudice. It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay.

> It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay.

Why add such an example here? No one has claimed that discriminating among multiple candidates is never okay.

I'm simply challenging the idea that the law is a useful guide as to whether discrimination is ok.

I like a phrase you used. Decisions should be based on "judgment (not pre-judgment)".

It definitely seems like we agree here; I was thrown off course by [perhaps my interpretation of?] your words: “I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice.”

> In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose.

Good luck suing a potential employer because you were discriminated against outside of some protected class.

The whole point of job interviews is to perform discrimination according to some non-protected categories - for example, preferring more competent people over less competent people, more hardworking people over slackers, more reliable people over less reliable people, more experienced people over less experienced people, cheaper people over more expensive people, etc, etc.

It definitely is okay to discriminate over personal attributes, character and previous experiences, and employ the person who you want to work for you - which is not necessarily the same as the person 'most deserving of a job'. Freedom of association is an important right, people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons, for example, preventing the social harm done by racial discrimination in employment; in the default condition people should be free to refuse to associate with anyone simply because they don't want to.

> people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons

That reason is the same for any marginalized group: "preventing the social harm done by X discrimination".

Why not simplify the statement and say "preventing the social harm done by discrimination"?

Accepting discrimination against some people is inherently a hateful position.

Forcing people to work with someone against their will or preference also causes harm, and if society wants to do that it has to justify that the harm prevented is significantly greater than that - which is true for some types of discrimination and not true for others.

If nobody in the village wants to work with Bob because he's an asshole, they should be able to discriminate against Bob (and other assholes) as the social harm of Bob being unemployed and unemployable does not justify the social harm caused by the state coercing people to work with Bob, violating their freedom to choose. It would be harmful (and IMHO immoral) to prohibit discrimination against assholes. Freedom of association - and the freedom of not-associating it implies - is not inherently hateful, it is one of fundamental human rights that should be curtailed only if other alternatives aren't feasible - merely having some reason or some harm prevented is not necessarily enough.

Well, "I don't know if I believe anyone is 100% a dick-". Bob may be an asshole precisely because he's being discriminated against and that makes him angry. Our society seems to think that even the worst people, even murderers and thieves and rapists, can be rehabilitated and included.

But I see your point.

And I'm not arguing that no one should ever be allowed to discriminate for any reason. I'm simply flipping the script: instead of the default position being that discrimination is acceptable, discrimination should require justification.

Someone might be willing to publicly say "we don't hire assholes" and defend it. Go for it. It would be much harder to say "we don't hire short people" or "we don't hire dalits" and defend that.

> Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable.

For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable.

What people find acceptable other than legally is subjective and will have infinite differences of opinion.

> For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable.

I don't believe the parent poster was implying it wasn't legally acceptable. They were making a value statement.

What is legally acceptable is a laggy mirror of what society finds morally acceptable. Morals evolve over time and are gradually accepted by the majority before becoming law.

Should it be?

I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy of all of this. A portion of attractiveness is culture-invariant, and quantifiable based on measurable factors such as facial symmetry. Study after study have demonstrated that humans innately treat attractive individuals better than others.

Yet we obsess over skin colour and genitalia, without a single peep about the physical appearance discrimination that most humans take part in.

Because that starts to verge on telling you who to find fuckable instead of who to treat as a peer. Plus the level of baggage is completely different. I'm surprised at your surprise.

I think you've mistakenly scoped my point to solely "the dating game". Physical discrimination in that scope if of course, completely understandable, and IMO completely okay.

However, it's been shown repeatedly that "fuckability" results in better treatment in most other aspects of one's life, including things like job opportunities, career progression, and general treatment in non-romantic social interactions. All of these are scopes that modern society hyperfocuses on when race or gender are involved. That's the hypocritical aspect of it.

Whats hypocritical about it?

What are you possibly going to do about it that isn't already covered under a more general and better fitting "lets find ways to treat each other fairly that minimizes the opportunity for our monkey brains to fuck up and associate traits and characteristics with superficial features. there has got to be a way to do this, jesus christ"?

By focusing on just that aspect, fuckability, you imply that there is something different about this trait that needs special attention outside of finding ways to deal with each other fairly despite the tendency to judge based on appearances. There isn't a way that doesn't start getting weird immediately.

Please go up and actually read the post you are responding to. It sounds like you agree with OP but are just being obstinate.

OP is using "fuckability" as an example of something that doesn't get attention to highlight we shouldn't have any special categories and indeed just "treat each other fairly".

For hundreds of years, among other injustices, it was a valid and socially acceptable business model in the Americas to buy a 13 year old girl, keep her locked up and rape her repeatedly, and sell her children ( your children! ) to recoup costs. Much of our policy is just reflections of that catastrophic trauma in the descendants of all involved.

Two reasons: Short people have not faced anywhere near the scale of injustices as Black people in America historically have, so there is not much of a cultural desire to right the wrongs done to short people or people with slightly lower facial symmetry.

Secondly, all those characteristics are subjective, and are continuous measurements, not discrete properties. How do you define short or unattractive?

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/715141

> Notably, the magnitude of the earnings disparities along the perceived attractiveness continuum, net of controls, rivals and/or exceeds in magnitude the black-white race gap and, among African-Americans, the black-white race gap and the gender gap in earnings

That's equal to the black-white and gender gap after affirmative action programs and laws making penalising minorities and women in hiring processes illegal though....

Does it matter? The discussion above is about people obsessing right now about a subset of characteristics, while ignoring others. What happened happened, we should worry about what we can do right now to improve fairness.

How is race a discrete, and not a continuous, property? It seems quite obviously continuous too.

>How is race a discrete, and not a continuous, property?

The "one drop of blood" school of thought.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

'Race' is a thought-stopping way to categorize humans, but if we replace it with 'ancestry' rather than 'Census designation category' we can at least state with confidence that ancestry is a discrete property, one is simply descended from another person or one isn't.

It doubles with each generation (this stops being true remarkably quickly but let's use single-static-assignment to ignore cousin marriage), so while someone with perfect information could say "so-and-so has precisely 14 ancestors from West Africa in a generation where the remaining 242 ancestors are all European", it's easier to say they're 5% African-descended.

Or Black, by the old American rules around race. I did say it's a thought-stopping category.

Race isn't a discrete category. Ethnicity is closer to what you're describing.

This has been the same for all culturally accepted biases. Theyre all completely ok until theyre suddenly not and then a maelstrom of controversy accompanies its transition from ok to unacceptable.

I've wondered if much of the gender discrimination in the workplace can be attributed to height discrimination, as women tend to he shorter. Is there data on how men and women fare adjusted for height?

(This is obviously separate from any sexual harassment etc in the workplace -- I'm referring to compensation and promotions)

There's some great studies, (and, as I recall a few HN famous anecdotes) on just the effects of using feminine names in emails or resumes vs masculine ones.

>There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in many studies than biases around gender and ethnicity even.

Not only are they biases, there is some data that shows attractiveness, height, etc actually correlate with competency. It might be a true stereotype (self-fulfilling or not).

Quite naturally I would imagine it makes you more competent in every role where you can be discriminated on those basis (customer-facing, or any job that's heavy on communication). Could make sense for the social worker role, less so for the IT specialist, but I'd be interested to know your source.

I'm hoping he comes up with a source too, but I imagine that the people we're all naturally biased toward generally get evaluated in the most favorable light so it'd be weird if there wasn't some data that showed they were more competent.

The reason they are "obsessed over", or taken into account as someone else may put it, although I'll give you that any kind of social/cultural identity tends to lead to some form of obsession in some people's minds, is because they are deemed significant for locally dependent social/historical/political reasons which I am sure I don't need to give you examples of but will anyway : colonialism, slavery, genocides... You name it

Whereas discrimination exist based of height, weight, and facial symmetry, because they are a little less based on cultural factors, they tend to cross group boundaries and not allow for culture wars because of its more evenly distributed nature. The interesting thing is that the fact that you took the time to write a comment about them and that they are becoming a social issue is because the culture spheres tend to be bigger and more intertwined with globalization. People who share the same issues can find eachother and aggregate across cultural identities. The incel "movement" is a product of the world wide web, I don't think it would have been possible in another era.

On another hand, I don't think we need to establish hierarchies between discriminations. Although discriminations share a lot of their logic, they also often respond to their own logic. I am all in favor to put in place more mechanisms to avoid it, like any kind of anonymization, but I don't they are an argument against what's already put in place against more socially recognized ones.

Attractiveness is not at all evenly distributed among races. Neither is height or weight. And "attractiveness" is still massively influenced by cultural perceptions.

1. My point was inside any group, there is a certain distribution of attractiveness relative to the attractiveness "standard" of that group. And that somehow, a certain level of (culturally defined) attractiveness is somehow not enough to constitute a group (or used to be not enough at least) Or maybe is that because attractiveness is relative enough at the individual level so that it is hard for an individual to be systematically identified by others ? Or is it because to self-identify as unattractive/attractive tends to have a negative social costs in social relationships ? I must admit I don't know. I am just throwing hypotheses now.

Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races".

(Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.)

2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.

Putting physical fitness in the same bucket as height, gender, and race is a category error. Whether someone is fit or obese tells you a lot about their lifestyle and daily choices. You cannot change your facial structure or tallness (yet), but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength.

...but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength

No, it doesn't. Not being fit merely tells you that they might have lifestyle choices different from your own.

Or they might be female with PCOS. Or they might have a disease that causes fatigue or pain when they exercise. Heck, that might be the very reason for their desk job. Or a history of food insecurity and really need the insurance the job provides to be able to afford therapy, if they are even to that point. Heck, they might just not be knowledgeable enough to separate bad health advice from good health advice and despite trying things out, feel stuck. It isn't like I learned how to care for my body in school, after all. Health class focused on STDs and parts of the body while physical education classes were more focused on sports, rules, and being a good teammate.

The reality is that being overweight only tells you that they are overweight.

Thanks, it is not absolute certainty, it is, as I said, a "signal": It's about statistical inference. That is what you do when you meet somebody or conduct a job interview. We are not all-knowing beings. The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.

You know you have this bias, though. People use the same sort of language for racism, homophobia, and such things. You can train yourself to think of exceptions to overcome some of the bias and honestly, if you are interviewing people, you should be doing so actively. It took me longer to type up the reply than to think of valid reasons this could happen to someone, after all. As you said, it isn't rocket science.

> The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.

Quite an assumption you have there. Industrial food is cheap and crowds out normal food. Some areas are basically food deserts. A significant portion of the population also has health issues that complicate maintaining a healthy weight.

I've always been quite skeptical of the fast-food for the simple reason that when I am strapped for cash I buy rice and beans. No processed or fast foods even come close to rice and beans on a dollar-per-calorie basis.

So called "food deserts" are a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Are the restaurants in your area a reflection of the eating habits of the people in that area, or a grand conspiracy to keep us unhealthy? I tend towards the former.

I am also skeptical that even in "food deserts" an enterprising individual can't acquire rice and beans.

For people struggling to pay rent, sometimes working multiple jobs and or with kids, there isn't a lot of energy or executive function left. And even rice and beans aren't terribly nutritious. If that's a staple for decades it can also cause obesity, especially for certain genetic demographics.

Not to mention that when you are struggling to pay rent, you are often struggling to pay utilities too. Time without water, electricity, or gas to wash, cook, and keep things cold seriously impact your ability to cook, even if you do have the time.

true. but, it could also mean they are demonstrating traits that make them a more desirable candidate!

for example, if they have recently made the decision to stop smoking cigarettes, thereby making a positive change in their lifestyle and health, this shows strength of character. it also demonstrates their ability to question past poor decisions rather than give in to the sunk cost fallacy, and then take steps to correct them. and of course, it also tends to make you put on weight [0] ... although not much more that 10 lb or 5 kg it seems, so interviewer beware, i guess ;)

0. <https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000811.htm>

Agreed.

I'd recommend keeping fitness a top priority especially as one gets older. Not only does everything get easier when not overweight, but the energy boost and appearance improvements certainly helps your confidence and presentation in every possible way.

I'm not someone you'd consider a "pretty" man even by a long shot, but being fit with a healthy BMI makes a world of difference nonetheless.

(I took serious stock some time not too long ago and realised weight lifting and being strong wasn't enough when actually overweight. Have dropped 15% of my body weight through dieting and the difference is amazing. I'm closer to fifty).

I don't believe attractiveness defines a persons value, I just know it changes how people behave around you, so you will probably see results if you can put some effort into being fit and put together. As you said, not everyone gets to be 'handsome' or 'pretty', but you can get a head way above the pack with fitness alone.

I've always had a hard time articulating my advice on this matter, because it's easy to be shallow, and it's insensitive because not everyone can act on it. But for those who can, it's more about being pragmatic.

Absolutely. You can work with what you got, and stop blaming the world for what you weren't given (e.g. a face with no deformities, for me; I'm happy the picture with resume is not a done thing in Australia). Telling people to HTFU has never been popular, but that doesn't mean it can't apply to most anyone.

It might be small things like quitting alcohol, not using smart phones until the early hours every single night - so getting enough, better quality sleep. And getting a water carbonator with the money saved from the drink, thus improving your skin through better hydration. And squeezing some walks in here and there eg by parking further away, or taking the stairs, when before you wouldn't.

Taking hard personal responsibility for your own health, I'm sure most everyone could find something to improve on.

I have a long list still to go through for myself - but I've accepted that minor transgressions one day can be balanced out by being better the next few days. Thus one can achieve balance without going crazy.

For me Intermittent Fasting has been an incredible eye opener, and weight shredder. This included learning about nutrition. On this, DIY food box deliveries (eg Everyplate, the simpler/cheaper version of Hello Fresh) are extremely high value compared to eg Uber Eats deliveries - both nutritionally, and financially. It takes effort, of course - but that's part of HTFU.

Finally, going through a process of decluttering and cleaning my home after my separation - changing these habits have been very healthy for my mental state. Perhaps this goes twice for someone with ADHD, like myself. When I'm home now, I truly feel at peace; it's changed my attitude into a more positive one, which has improved my energy and clarity of thinking.

It's all about habits, and mental and physical health interconnect; maintaining both certainly takes discipline and effort. The effects are observable, though, and everyone judges everything all the time on an unconscious level. Fair or not - as biological beings that's just how it is.

I suppose it could also be a evolutionary signal. People have gotten taller over the centuries as nutrition has improved. So a tall, healthy looking person could be attractive evolutionary speaking.

No it doesn't, there are plenty of disorders both physical and mental that can lead you to get overweight. There are plenty of people that are naturally fit without any effort. It says nothing about your ability to successfully accomplish a job. It's just another discriminating bias.

It's statistical inference. That is what you do when you meet somebody or conduct a job interview. We are not all-knowing beings. The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.

At my company we joke about how many of us hired during covid are really short. Remote hiring seems to have been a great leveller, at least on that one front.

I am living in a country where photos on a resume are the norm and for me it is the other way round. I am interviewing a lot of people at the moment and having a picture with the resume really helps thinking of the applicant as a human being, rather than just a character sheet with skills and abilities. It also helps to remember and associate resumes, it's easier to relate a portrait to a set of skills and a CV than tens of names. You don't have to be a super model, just any professional picture will do that.

It's also an illusion that not having pictures on the resume will reduce Bias in favor of attractive people. It will only push it to a later stage of the interview process.

I think most less attractive people would rather get to the later stages of the interview process where they'll get a chance to advocate for themselves. It's better than being screened out early and not knowing whether it's because you're ugly or because the qualifications listed in your resume aren't impressive.

In a merit based process shouldn't applicants be thought of as just character sheets?

It should be, but humans are humans.

Depends. Someone will have to work with those people. They don't just interact with a computer or a machine.

Right but is their name or physical appearance really that important in working together?

I've worked with people I never met, never saw their photo or real name or heard their voice. As long as they communicate somehow and produce work needed, isn't that enough?

Honestly I'm surprised it's acceptable for resumes presented to me as a hiring manager to even have names on them, let alone photos. Humans are hardwired to make snap judgements about people based on a first visual impression, and a photo at the top of a resume will massively color the rest of your assessment.

No names and photos on resumes is the way to go. I dont need to see who you know kn LinkedIn either.

Emphatic agreement.

Ages ago, I witnessed the execs toss resumes with "funny sounding names". One of those anecdotal experiences that made a huge impression on me. Having grown up surrounded by immigrants and misc POC -- people are just people -- chucking resumes based on non-whiteness really pissed me off.

This issue always reminds me of symphony auditions. To remove bias, candidates perform behind a screen.

The caveat that gives me pause is the burden of filtering out "spam" resumes. It was such a chore the last time I helped with hiring. I can only imagine it's gotten worse.

Perhaps resumes should be deanonymized by HR. Two step process. First, potential applicants are authenticated. Next, PII is stripped before the hiring team gets the bulk of the resumes.

But what do I know? Hiring and interviewing is snafu everywhere these days. Adding more hoops and friction will probably fly like a lead zeppelin.

> It will only push it to a later stage of the interview process.

Isn't this preferable though, when there's hopefully other, more meaningful, evidence that can potentially mitigate these easy but weaker biases?

That is extremely unusual for the UK. I know some European countries make a photo mandatory - but I've never seen it in the UK.

I've reviewed a huge number of CVs - at SME and large companies. I think the only time I've ever seen a photo in that context was an auto-generated thing from LinkedIn.

As far as I know, it's very unusual in Netherland. I've certainly never included a photo on a CV (though I do have one on LinkedIn, where a lot of my work comes from). When I was part of the hiring process, I did notice that all Indian/TCS CVs I got to see had photos, though.

I've had a few Dutch interns join me in Australia. One applicant who wasn't successful was a young woman whose CV included a few personal photos, one of which was a bit of a sultry pose straddling a chair. Not indecent, but certainly not work oriented.

I once got a cv from a developer who put an url to his homepage where he had photos of him and his girlfriend modeling underwear.

Not a real problem (for me), but it's the first time I've seen someone nearly naked before I met them in person for an interview. It was certainly a little odd.

When trying to find a graphic designer once, got a portfolio from one designer mostly comprised of work for a soft porn site. It may have been professional graphic design experience but not exactly something I wanted to look at as part of my job.

Eh, I see a few photos on CVs here in the UK - typically on Euro candidates though (from memory).

On the other hand I've seen all sorts of weird shit on CVs, it is part of the fun. From the guy giving himself 5/5 stars for inter-personal skills, to the obscure hobbies expanded on in great detail, to the hilarious email addresses.

There is just a wide range of views on what a cv should contain. My views doubtless differ to others! I did give a yes to the guy with the .txt file cv though. On principle.

Were you the hiring manager that had a problem with my @cocaine.ninja or @cock.li email address?

You made me almost catapult my breakfast through my nose xD

the use of the word catapult now got me - bravo!

I once saw "Never drank alcohol after birth" under "personal details"

Power to you for living a healthy lifestyle but... you were big on chugging kegs before you were born?!

Morther drinks = goes to baby in utherus

I worked in business consulting and we always put resumes/bios with out pictures (professional headshots) in proposals.

Many startups have founder / leadership pics and bios on their website

Most "professionals" like lawyers have a headshot on their website. Every political campaign features the face of the candidates.

Almost everyone who uses linkedin has a pic

Really, western institutional job applications are pretty much the only place where people are trying to "sell themselves" but don't have a pic. It's basically fairness theatre, to pretend that the personal physical characteristics of people don't matter. If that was true, you wouldn't have all the examples I listed.

I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong here, just that it's obvious from all human behavior that seeing what a person looks like is an important part of working with them.

> I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong here, just that it's obvious from all human behavior that seeing what a person looks like is an important part of working with them.

You will see it during the actual interview stage (whether it is done through a videocall or in-person), why would you need it during the resume stage? So you can use a single photo of theirs as a factor when deciding whether to filter out a resume or to proceed further?

I agree it factors in highly in the US. Probably incorrectly so. But here the perceived threat of lawsuits and equal employment opportunity scrutiny drive the practice of leaving out the headshot. Let people discriminate when they have more plausible deniability, I suppose. Even though unattractive is not a protected class, receiving headshots of the applicants to be rejected before interview would open you to scrutiny of differentials in hiring of protected classes as well.

> seeing what a person looks like is an important part of working with them

Why?

Because we're social animals that have evolved to weight appearance very highly in decision we make. I'm not trying to justify it, but it's a fact. We're not vulcans, and even if we we're we'd recognize that what we find attractive has evolutionary significance and weigh that signal accordingly.

Unsurprisingly, there are no unattractive Vulcans, at least none I've met.

I’ve been a hiring manager in England for around 10 years and I can’t recall a single CV with a photo. I don’t know where these CVs were coming from that you received but it’s definitely not standard practice to send a CV with a photo here.

I wonder if they were working with recruiters who were scraping LinkedIn photos.

Very unusual practice for the UK, and slightly dubious, IMO.

I've been working as a programmer in the UK for ~20 years. I've interviewed a huge number of job candidates in that time and reviewed more CVs than I'd care to count. I have never seen a single CV with a photo on it.

Entirely possible they're filtered out by recruiters and/or HR, of course.

It’s not a UK cultural thing - never in my life or any friends who I asked have attached a photo - but it’s often done by applicants who might be UK residents when it’s considered the norm in their country of origin.

Personally I hate it, as I know subconsciously having seen their photo, I _will_ use it as part of my evaluation which is unfair to other candidates.

What you describe is what I would consider a cultural thing. Here in Germany everybody attaches a photo (often a business-like studio photo), for instance.

I'm surprised by this comment.

It's definitely not standard practice to include a photo with a CV in the UK to my knowledge.

Anecdotally I've never done that at any point in my career nor have I ever been asked to.

I've also never seen a photo included with a CV when hiring.

I've worked in tech in the UK for 25 years now, in companies ranging from tiny startups to SMEs to large corporations, and I've reviewed probably a few thousand CVs in that time. I can't remember ever seeing one with a photo on it. I suspect your experience was influenced by something other than location.

In NZ/AU we don’t include photos or personal information. When I moved to Singapore I was stocked. People put photos. Birthday. Family. Current Salary. Address. Long cover letters.

Not here in Sweden. Don't equate London/UK to Europe. Typical American.

To be fair, they at least said “seems to be,” which is a bit better than many Europeans who say similar things about Europe on this site, which I find even less excusable and seem to see daily.

On topic, it is quite common in a few other European countries, such as Switzerland and I believe Germany, so I imagine it’s at least much more common in Europe overall given that it’s relatively unheard of in the US.

With or without, tons of companies will do "due diligence" and will look for your FB and Insta feeds, just in case you are drunk or drugged or whatever might seem inappropriate. Kinda creepy to go such lengths, but also some companies don't want people not smart enough to not post their shenanigans publicly.

Will they not hire you if you don’t have social media accounts? I could see them thinking that you are lying and trying to hide something.

Usually information can be used against you, but the absence does not.

IMO would suspicious for high enough positions where marketing starts to become part of the job

Great point!

How do they ensure they are not looking at someone else with the same name ? Not hiring you because you are drunk on Facebook is one thing but not hiring you because someone with the same name is drunk on Facebook is completely ridiculous.

Happens towards the last interviews, after which they already saw you irl/zoom.

Interesting problem btw when picking up names for kids - unique or john smith to blend in. Something Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt pondered a decade ago.

They don't even have to troll your social media accounts, your application has all the info they need to buy details from a data broker/"consumer reputation service"

> When I was in England .. I was taken aback by most of the resumes including photos. That's just not done here in the US...

This does not match my experience in London working for SMEs, it's very rare that a CV includes a photo, especially tech role applicants.

That’s an interesting practice… I’m glad this is not the case in the states, aside from maybe applying for acting roles. I don’t know if it’s common practice nowadays but I remember there was a period of time when employers would request your social media profiles.. did they encourage something similar in England? Im asking because if they already encouraged photo submissions, this seems like a related piece of information they might have also liked to receive. To be honest I don’t know why they would want an SWE candidates photo in the first place, it’s not a PR heavy role… maybe they want to use A.I to measure a level of greasiness or the size of a candidates head (kidding!)

I'm not sure what the parent is talking about but this is not something we do in England for SWE roles.

What about face-to-face or Zoom interviews? At some point you're going have to show your face. LinkedIn has also changed things a lot. It seems like a losing battle, in spite of the good intentions.

Not sure how long ago this was - photos on resumes is definitely not a thing in the UK anymore. Very common in some European countries (e.g. Germany), though.

Some jobs in the UK get a lot of international applicants; from time to time they'll include photos.

Agree it's pretty uncommon though.

Honestly, 20 years ago. And we were seeing a lot of non-English applicants in central London, no surprise there.

Those are some massive caveats that really should have been included in your original post

It's one thing that attractive people fare better in workplaces. But they also fare better in the courtroom:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/so-sue-me/201408/do-...

In the US, you're asked your ethnicity, gender, and sexuality on every job application. Just saying.

And they almost always say that that information is optional and will not afffect the hiring process.

of course if that were true they wouldn't be asking, just like how they don't ask about what brand of dish soap I use or how I feel about aardvarks or anything else that actually doesn't matter to them. I wish they'd just be honest about it.

"It seems to be standard practice in Europe"

I'm in my 50s in the UK and I've never had anyone ask for a photo during recruitment and I've also done a lot of hiring for multiple companies and they certainly didn't ask for photos.

Heard from friends who lived and worked in South Korea that it was pretty much mandatory for any resume application there. The specific one that comes to mind is nursing. Definitely left me baffled the first time I heard it.

Yep, pretty much mandatory in Korea. Everyone goes to professional photographers who apply copious amounts of photoshop, of course.

You even get to pick your own image for your driver's license, again with a healthy serving of digital retouching.

As others have pointed out, even without photos on resumes, often times the first thing I do when looking at a candidate is go to their LinkedIn profile, which of course do feature headshots.

Will you not hire them if they don’t have a LinkedIn profile (or any other social media accounts)?

I suspect that employers who are more secretive themselves may find the lack of social media or other nonymous online presence as a good indication that the person in question is unlikely to be someone who could publicly share internal information accidentally.

Depending on the job market, in situations where there are many good candidates for each position companies generally are satisficing not optimizing, and in that case simply discarding some percentage of candidates (i.e. anyone unusual) is not a drawback (since the difference between the best candidate and the next few runners-up is less than what you can measure) and so arbitrary filtering gets done.

Of course, that would usually not be an obstacle in job markets where acceptable candidates are scarce; SWE vacancies are not the same as journalist vacancies.

This is why I removed my headshot from linkedin.

with linkedin being so common these days, does it really matter if the photo is on the actual resume?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com