Character and integrity lead a person to success, but with good appearance.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'd have to say I disagree again, moreover because you didn't listen to the point.

That probably has something to do with the fact that I wasn't addressing your point.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

That probably has something to do with the fact that I wasn't addressing your point.

The individual you were addressing and I had the same point, hense the word "WE". But hey, jump into a semantics argument since your point holds no water... it'd be a good way for you to distract for your lack of answering any real question. So what jobs have you held? Burger Barn? Best Buy? Mowing Lawns? Paperroute?

[Iggy]

Thankfully, not all corporations behave like that. I have tattoos, long hair(colour depends on what season it is, though I stick with blonde or red), and I've been wearing nail polish for years. I've worked in retail for 19 of my working years, as well as FedEx Ground, a florist, and the nursery/greenhouse I currently work at. FedEx even promoted me to their Q-A dept, based on my performance and attention to detail. My looks meant nothing.

[Bridget]

For the most part, appearance is irrelevant when it comes to hiring someone, and companies can easily bypass a potentially great worker when considering this. The idea that success or expertise is contingent upon a good appearance flies out the window when you consider jobs such as coal mining, construction, etc. These people make a lot of money compared to jobs that enforce a standard of appearance.

Now, of course, businesses might have a standard for their employee's appearance in order encourage consistency, but when they decline an individual who fails to comply with this standard, they're not doing so because they judged him to be a bad worker off his appearance. It's simply because he doesn't want to adhere to their rules. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem, as I have been arguing, with people (individually and large scale) judging the personality and work potential of people based on their appearance.

No, you didn't have the same point. Battery was arguing from a social/cultural standpoint of using "statistics" (nothing more than misconceptions, cliches, and stereotypes) to efficiently filter through individuals for the most potent friendships or relationships. I was arguing against it and explaining how it could just as easily work against him as it could in his favor. You are discussing something different.

[Innoc]

I don't know that I've seen any of the bickering ITT distinguish between blue and white collar jobs. Maybe one or two have dodged near it? If you want to dress in a slovenly fashion or give little to no attention to your appearance then you will find broader acceptance in the blue collar world. There's an expression in the recruiter world that says "dress for the job you want to get". I don't believe it was the blue collar world that directly inspired that view but it fits somewhere. If someone wants to look like they empty trash cans and mop floors for a living...have at it. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I know that only a fool shows up at the interviews I attend wearing anything less than a suit. Don't, however, confuse the interview with the day to day of the job.

[battery]

Originally Posted by Innoc

I don't know that I've seen any of the bickering ITT distinguish between blue and white collar jobs. Maybe one or two have dodged near it? If you want to dress in a slovenly fashion or give little to no attention to your appearance then you will find broader acceptance in the blue collar world. There's an expression in the recruiter world that says "dress for the job you want to get". I don't believe it was the blue collar world that directly inspired that view but it fits somewhere. If someone wants to look like they empty trash cans and mop floors for a living...have at it. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I know that only a fool shows up at the interviews I attend wearing anything less than a suit. Don't, however, confuse the interview with the day to day of the job.

In California, a wise white collar would also make sure he maintain a respectable physique, partly for the purpose of job hunting. A 50-year old professional can afford to be too fat or too skinny. His long, valuable experience compensates for it. Now if you are still in your late 20's, you have little bargaining chips. If someone decides to hire you, it is because they believe in your potential to grow and eventually become a leader. Yes, they are investing in your future while you are still worth nothing. Appearance is a deciding factor determining how a person gets treated by coworkers, customers, and business negotiators. Unless one has an exceptional track record at an early age of 20's, companies are going to prefer a better-looking person because personal appearance is a cornerstone in building a leader.

Some may claim they don't aspire to become a manager. I can assure you no one of these people, none, dares to say such thing in a job interview, especially if they are young. They all know the underlying reason very well.
________
Fuckube

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

For the most part, appearance is irrelevant when it comes to hiring someone, and companies can easily bypass a potentially great worker when considering this. The idea that success or expertise is contingent upon a good appearance flies out the window when you consider jobs such as coal mining, construction, etc. These people make a lot of money compared to jobs that enforce a standard of appearance.

Now, of course, businesses might have a standard for their employee's appearance in order encourage consistency, but when they decline an individual who fails to comply with this standard, they're not doing so because they judged him to be a bad worker off his appearance. It's simply because he doesn't want to adhere to their rules. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem, as I have been arguing, with people (individually and large scale) judging the personality and work potential of people based on their appearance.

If a person doesn't know how to dress and bath for an interview they ARE showing a lack of understanding of the business environment and the common sense rules for applying for a job. A lack of common sense in the most simplest of things, first contact in an interview, directly relates to the judgement of that person on the job. Period. If you don't see that now you surely will when you stop suckling the tit of your mommy and daddy and actually get a job.

Scuzzy

[Bridget]

I agree that people should be able to run their businesses as they see fit, and that if someone fails to comply with some consistent appearance standard, the business has the right to decline their employment. I think that's justified because the person doesn't want to integrate into the business. It says nothing about them presuming him to be a poor worker or poor person, which is why it has nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

I'm against people using appearance as a judgment of character and work potential. It's not always the most conclusive way to go about considering an individual's personality and talent and dedication and what have you. Yeah, maybe statistics show x and y lead to z, but statistics can't always be relied on because human beings happen to be differing individuals with different circumstances.

Why the trollish remark toward the end of your paragraph? umad or something?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

I agree that people should be able to run their businesses as they see fit, and that if someone fails to comply with some consistent appearance standard, the business has the right to decline their employment. I think that's justified because the person doesn't want to integrate into the business. It says nothing about them presuming him to be a poor worker or poor person, which is why it has nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

I'm against people using appearance as a judgment of character and work potential. It's not always the most conclusive way to go about considering an individual's personality and talent and dedication and what have you. Yeah, maybe statistics show x and y lead to z, but statistics can't always be relied on because human beings happen to be differing individuals with different circumstances.

Why the trollish remark toward the end of your paragraph? umad or something?

No, you're arguing against common sense, it's annoying. You've never held a job, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's hard to take someone seriously who has no experience or frame of reference. Given the choice between a guy who knows how to dress to an interview and one that doesn't, both with completely equal credentials, it's clear they'll pick the guy who knows how to dress himself. Why? Because the one guy LACKS common sense, he doesn't even know how to dress for an appropriate situation... THAT shows lack of judgement. You've given no argument against that, so you're just babbling.

[Bridget]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As I said, you've given no argument.

Guy A is equal to Guy B, except Guy B chooses not to shower. That shows 1) lack of judgement. 2) inability to adapt to corporate settings.

What's your argument for that?

[Bridget]

You're strawmaning pretty hard.

My argument: People should be expected to follow rules when seeking employment for a job. This includes an appearance standard. When people are rejected because they can't follow this standard, they are done so because of their inability to follow that particular standard. It says nothing about their personality or work potential.

I am against people concluding people's potential or personality off trivial shit like their personal appearance or choice of clothing or personal hygiene or something like that. That isn't to say I expect businesses to hire bums who don't shower and wear hole-ridden t-shirts while sipping beer and scratching their ass. I'm just saying, deny them a job for their inability to follow your customs. Don't judge their character or work potential off that.

And no, just because someone refuses to follow one rule doesn't make them immediately irresponsible or contradictory. If I have the potential to be an amazing actor, but I deny an acting career because someone wants me to dress up in a chicken suit for every role I perform, that says nothing about my ability to act. It does say, however, that I don't want to wear a fucking chicken costume.

So, to summarize: I am against partial judgment of people's character and potential for the most part. We should be considering people's actual personality. I never meant for this to be within the context of business. I was actually speaking just in a social context, until you started rattling on about your point.

rofl.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Bridget

You're strawmaning pretty hard.

My argument: People should be expected to follow rules when seeking employment for a job. This includes an appearance standard. When people are rejected because they can't follow this standard, they are done so because of their inability to follow that particular standard. It says nothing about their personality or work potential.

I don't know that I've ever run across an appearance standard for the interview. Perhaps there are examples out there but I've never come across them. Appearance standards come into play for actual employees.

Originally Posted by Bridget

I am against people concluding people's potential or personality off trivial shit like their personal appearance or choice of clothing or personal hygiene or something like that. That isn't to say I expect businesses to hire bums who don't shower and wear hole-ridden t-shirts while sipping beer and scratching their ass. I'm just saying, deny them a job for their inability to follow your customs. Don't judge their character or work potential off that.

I always had my receptionists note appearance and demeanor of those people dropping off applications or resumes for white collar jobs. Any person who doesn't bring their "A" game is not someone I have any interest in wasting my time interviewing. If you're dropping off materials with a prospective employer that are intended to win you an interview for a white collar job come loaded for bear or stay home. I think this is especially true in this tight job market. So you are against using personal appearance to evaluate suitability? I think it would be interesting to see if you hold that same view in 20 years. I also think it will be interesting to see what level of responsibility you hold at that time too.

Originally Posted by Bridget

And no, just because someone refuses to follow one rule doesn't make them immediately irresponsible or contradictory. If I have the potential to be an amazing actor, but I deny an acting career because someone wants me to dress up in a chicken suit for every role I perform, that says nothing about my ability to act. It does say, however, that I don't want to wear a fucking chicken costume.

Wasted potential or wasted genius is absurdly common. How often is someone hired on potential versus education or (more importantly) accomplishments and experience? Failure to follow rules doesn't make someone anything. It's merely an indicator. It may be big or small. However, are you talking about rules that apply to interview or employment?

Originally Posted by Bridget

So, to summarize: I am against partial judgment of people's character and potential for the most part. We should be considering people's actual personality. I never meant for this to be within the context of business. I was actually speaking just in a social context, until you started rattling on about your point.

Wasn't Battery's original post pertaining primarily to employment? Social non-business is different...but similar as well.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by battery

In California, a wise white collar would also make sure he maintain a respectable physique, partly for the purpose of job hunting. A 50-year old professional can afford to be too fat or too skinny. His long, valuable experience compensates for it. Now if you are still in your late 20's, you have little bargaining chips. If someone decides to hire you, it is because they believe in your potential to grow and eventually become a leader. Yes, they are investing in your future while you are still worth nothing. Appearance is a deciding factor determining how a person gets treated by coworkers, customers, and business negotiators. Unless one has an exceptional track record at an early age of 20's, companies are going to prefer a better-looking person because personal appearance is a cornerstone in building a leader.

Some may claim they don't aspire to become a manager. I can assure you no one of these people, none, dares to say such thing in a job interview, especially if they are young. They all know the underlying reason very well.

I agree. I think you need to give yourself EVERY edge in this tight job market. Building success upon success means learning how to give yourself every edge you can.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

My argument: People should be expected to follow rules when seeking employment for a job. This includes an appearance standard. When people are rejected because they can't follow this standard, they are done so because of their inability to follow that particular standard. It says nothing about their personality or work potential.

Well now we're actually making progress in the discussion Bridget. If it says nothing about their personality or work potential why do you feel they should be expected to follow the rules? Why is it a bad thing in your mind if they do not follow the rules of appearance standard?

Scuzzy

[battery]

Originally Posted by Bridget

So, to summarize: I am against partial judgment of people's character and potential for the most part. We should be considering people's actual personality.

So tell us exactly how we are supposed to judge personality.

In my view, the minimum standard of personality for a job candidate are as follows:

1) Be able to discuss headline news of the day, and already have a personal opinion ready for each piece of news (How the fuck can a person initiate a casual conversation if he doesn't read the news? Where is he getting conversational topics people can relate to?)

2) Be able to give some minor compliments just by observing objects and people as the candidate is led around the office space. Also he should be able to use the compliment as a lead to ask further questions about my company( I want every subordinate of mine armed with basic flattery skill. I expect them to apply it masterfully and subtly when I bring in potential clients in the office.)

3) Crack some jokes when the right circumstance arises. (I don't wanna be working with no self-absorbed, anti-social nerds.)

4) No hang-up and no down-time when talking casually. (This requires the candidate be a good conversationalist)

5) When asked the question, "are you an introvert or extrovert?", I expect the candidate to answer "I am both introvert and extrovert because I am self-reflective but also outgoing. Being just an introvert or just an extrovert means someone needs to receive more training in the opposite area. I am skilled in both areas."

So are these personality "tests" more complete than a simple evaluation based on appearance?
________
Drug Rehab Forum

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by battery

So tell us exactly how we are supposed to judge personality.

experience

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

experience

Originally Posted by Bridget

My argument: People should be expected to follow rules when seeking employment for a job. This includes an appearance standard. When people are rejected because they can't follow this standard, they are done so because of their inability to follow that particular standard. It says nothing about their personality or work potential.

Well now we're actually making progress in the discussion Bridget. If it says nothing about their personality or work potential why do you feel they should be expected to follow the rules? Why is it a bad thing in your mind if they do not follow the rules of appearance standard?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Come on Bridget, how long is it going to take you to come up with a lie to dig yourself out of this hole? You could just admit your wrong and move on... cause that's what it looks like you're doing....

[reaper18]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Come on Bridget, how long is it going to take you to come up with a lie to dig yourself out of this hole? You could just admit your wrong and move on... cause that's what it looks like you're doing....

wow.