Institutional bias in job postings against AS??

Post Reply New Topic

No, because one has control over whether they go to school for programming or cooking. One does not have control over personality traits.



And you're the one making the fallacious argument.

The bulk of the material in job descriptions is standard (often copy-pasted from a previous description). At a job interview I was told that the job description was generic and virtually none of it was relevant for the job in question. The organisation had created descriptions for jobs at different pay grades which included most of the tasks that could be expected from somebody at that grade.

I am yet to see a job advert that states that interpersonal and communication skills are not required. Depending on the nature of the job they will be required at different levels.

Most job descriptions will require adaptability (with a "or anything else required ...") clause so that they can change the nature of the job if necessary and avoid staff refusing to do something that was not explicitly spelt out in the job description.

I do believe that HR are actively discouraging Aspies from their workforce. They don't like the idea of employees that do not fall in line with the other sheep they employ.

^ I doubt ALL companies are like that, but they're certainly out there. I think part of why they want "sheep" (even if they try to make it look like they want people who think outside the box, bring new ideas to the table, etc.) is so nobody questions their unethical business practices.

I won't even TRY to determine if they're telling the truth or not about what they want when I apply. If they really want someone other than they say, I won't get the interview and I won't want to work for such a company anyway, so everyone wins.

And yes, I've fallen into the trap of thinking that qualification lists are strict minimum requirements. I'll just have to apply anyway to anywhere I'm even REMOTELY qualified for and let THEM tell me I'm not qualified. Or best-case, offer me a lower position that wasn't advertised which will get me SOME work experience!

And another thing: I've read that the biggest mistake applicants make is having little or no knowledge about the company they want to work for. Even if it feels like we have little or no say in where we work, we should "interview" the company as much as they interview us!

It sounds like you have a persecution complex.

That is paranoid way of looking at things. Most people don't even know what Aspergers is or its symptoms to even begin using them to discriminate against those with AS, besides not all people on the spectrum have those difficulties you listed. AS or not, not everybody is going to have every skill set listed.

People DO, actually. Personality traits do not control your behavior any more than does your DNA.

YOU had better control your behavior, because if you can not or will not do so, then you are unlikely to even get the first interview, and much less likely to get hired.


Not this time, kid. It's a common tool to use when the absurdity of an argument may be too subtle for even the person who made the argument to notice.

ANY preference is a bias against something else; but for a bias to become discriminatory requires some form of statement or action against one of the following:

• Race
• Sex
• Pregnancy
• Religion
• National origin
• Disability (physical or mental, including HIV status)
• Age (for workers over 40)
• Military service or affiliation
• Bankruptcy or bad debts
• Genetic information
• Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)

Under U.S. Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of any of these conditions.

It is NOT illegal to express preference (or "bias") for particular education, job skills, mobility (willingness to relocate), or lack of criminal history.

Now, if you have been discriminated against for having an ASD so severe that it counts as a disability, then you may have a case.

But if you're like me - high-functioning with ASD - then you could be employable for decades without anyone thinking that you're disabled in any way.

Bottom line: Preference for certain job-related qualification may be bias, but they are not discriminatory.

It took you over two months to come up with a rebuttal that consists mainly of a straw man argument? I never said anything about discrimination...I said biases. Show me one instance in this thread where I used the word discrimination. You can't because I didn't.

Oh and in addition to the straw man argument, you came up with an ad hominem attack (those are also fallacies) and what is likely something copied and pasted from wikipedia. Bravo...do you want a cookie?

The ad seems perfectly reasonable to me. The ordering of the skills may or may not be significant, you don't know.

The job is probably in a reasonably large organisation, and to do the job as an analyst you do need those skills. We are not talking about being able to make smalltalk, but talk to people so that you can work out what they need and how to do it. And you have to able to document it as well, in the form that the organisation is used to.

What makes you think an aspie could not do it?

I have excellent oral and written communication skills. I do great presentations and write scientific papers for a living. I live or starve off my business communication skills. I can't do small talk to save my life. I have never been hired or given a raise for chit-chat. I have been hired and promoted on the basis of business-relevant performance.

The key is packaging. Don't do "conversation"? Then stress your ability in "formal" communication. Inchoate data comes in, meaningful, logically organized conclusions go out.

Those are all skills you need to be successful in the job. It's not discriminatory if it's what it takes to get the job done.

Keep in mind though, excellent is a relative term. You don't have to write Pulitzer Prize novels or be a silver tonged snake oil salesman, but more just that I can understand what your writing, or saying, and it be useful to me.

No, it took over two months for me to remember that your post even existed - it made that much of an impression.


Did I say you said "Discrimination"?

The points I'm trying to make are these: (1) Bias and discrimination are not the same things. Bias is a legal preference, while discrimination is an illegal exclusionary act; (2) Biases are an integral part of the hiring process. Any time you specify preference for one skill, you are expressing a bias; and (3) Replying to any post does not mean that the reply is directed solely at the person who made the post. Anyone who reads a post may reply to it, and at any time they choose.


Straw Man? Ad Hominem? Specify, please.

Actually, the categories of discrimination were copied and pasted from Wikipedia, after verifying that they were legitimate by following the links to various governmental websites that Wikipedia provides.

Coincidentally, it seems that they also match the categories of discrimination as listed on the State and Federal Labor Law posters that are required by law to be displayed in every workplace. Isn't that amazing?

This. They want outgoing people exploding with charm and charisma - fun to be around and easy to work with (despite their often poor or "barely acceptable" work skills.)

Especially in the business world, many deals (etc.) are made by the one who can be most convincing, leaning heavily on charm and the ability to lie convincingly. They also need to survive the inevitable "pecking order" that goes on in any office. The more people in the office, the more petty politics go up exponentially.

It's twisted and insane, but that's what happens when corporate policy is modelled after a psychopathic personality.

Between self-employment and the books I'm writing, I hope I never have to go back to that corporate hell again.