They made Steve Jobs work the graveyard shift at Atari because he stunk so bad (he'd go weeks without showering) no one wanted to work with him. That had nothing to do with his skills or job performance, but everything to do with disrupting the work environment to the point where others couldn't perform to the best of their ability.

> Why don't you like them _and_ which of those reasons will affect their job performance? > Do they dismiss any approaches besides their own? Do they think mentoring is a waste of time? Do they think that their code is so obvious that there's no point in documenting? Do they think their code is so perfect that unit tests are unnecessary? These are good reasons to dislike someone and not hire them.

> Do you dislike them because they seem kind of boring? Get over yourself.

This is an interesting discussion that brings a lot of vitriolic comments.

A counterpoint that you seem to be dismissing: building a successful team often requires a good cultural and team fit. Hiring just on 'merit' alone doesn't guarantee success.

Consider the example of hiring a 'superstar' that the other team members do not like which would consequently impact the performance of the team as a whole because they don't work optimally. For the manager in charge of the team, culture fit is an important factor alongside others.

You bring up the really interesting question - is discrimination justified? If it makes the team better, if it makes the product better, if it makes the company better, then maybe the right thing to do is hire the fun white guy instead of the boring brown girl.

If people believe that, then I'll only ask that they acknowledge it. Next time someone talks about gender disparity or race disparity, stand up and say "Yep, hiring isn't fair, the disparity isn't related to innate skills"

It would be a relief, frankly, if every one would just say that and agree on it. The problem is usually that when issues of race and gender disparity come up, a lot of posters then insist that hiring is perfectly fair and balanced and it must be the 'culture' of some races or the 'brain chemistry' of some genders that is the real problem.

I think there is a much more valid reason if people were being absolutely honest. Powerful and privileged people have spent generations spilling blood and other less violent measures to get on top and stay on top. Being on top only happens through threat of force and excercise of power. The people at the bottom will replace the people at the top if presented with the opportunity. Even if most people are content to live in equality, some will seek advantage and pull up their group. Otherwise kind and cooperative people rarely have any interest in lowering their status. Identity politics seek to treat symptoms but don't touch the root cause. The root cause is probably in our DNA and no social technology has yet proven able to tame the will to power.

And just to make it clear, I don't believe any group has any natural advantage over another, just historical and geopolitical advantage.

You make very good points - sometimes the best discussions are well down in the comments.

Currently, while men hold the majority of the economic and political power in the US. From a purely Machiavellian viewpoint, why should they hire anyone besides other white men? They only stand to lose if business and politics become more egalitarian.

What's changed in the past century or so is that it can no longer appear blatant - "we're better because we say so" isn't cutting it anymore. Still - maybe given a chance a lot of them will find a way to hire each other. "Team culture" is as good an excuse as any.

It seems more like a prisoner's dilemma situation, where hiring from an in-group only works if you trust other members of the in-group enough to return the favor. Otherwise they could "betray", hiring a better candidate from outside the group who will perform better in the role. The person betraying would get both a better employee and the social kudos of having a diverse hiring record. I'd expect the trust strategy is a lot more common among fraternities, religious groups, diaspora communities, etc where community bonds are much stronger.

I believe that's exactly the sentiment behind the term "race traitor."

And to restate your point, the business may gain greatly from diversity in leadership, but the in-group mainly stands to lose. If they don't stand to lose then it's not really power sharing, is it? In my experience, these efforts hit the wall the moment they seek any real piece of the power pie. That's the difference between talks-the-talk and walks-the-walk.

Do you mean diversity in race and gender? I thought the argument was that there's no differences between races and gender? I actually genuinely believe that everyone should be treated equally but your line of thinking seems to suggest race and gender matter in decision making, its contradictory.

So the only reason you get to the top is through force? That's ridiculous, in modern society people also get to the top through competence. When I look around at successful people I know it's because they worked hard, have the experience so that their judgement is respected. In other words people look to their authority on their given domain. Who do you mean in your day to day life that used violence to get there?

Can you elaborate a bit on your first point -- hiring the fun person over the boring one. Are you implying you are selecting culture over diversity, or that the persons perception of fun is biased by their preferences?

> Do you dislike them because they seem kind of boring? Get over yourself.

Why’d I care about that? I only need them to write great code 8 hours a day. What they do outside of that is (mostly) irrelevant.