Edit since I can't reply to your comment: if you lack the emphaty to understand why people may be very reasonably insulted in such cases, you really shouldn't be conducting interviews, IMHO. The irony part is that you actually describe a behaviour that "assumes the worst of others", as you said.
The interviewee is not your friend, he/she do not know your brand of humor or internal jokes. Additionally, he/she may have cultural differences.
You talked with someone an hour in an unbalanced stressful job related situation and you really think you know something about their personality? Behavioural researchers think that you can't know much. I wouldn't be so judgmental of people you've just met. You should be more aware of the limitations of the interview platform and stick to what you can deduce. (Which is not, that a person is toxic, because he/she felt laughed at)
This is the problem. There are many situations in a career which aren't "normal" and will make people nervous. Giving presentations. Talking to the CEO. Or the boss's boss. Or the leading expert at X. Being in a meeting with all the execs. Or in a performance review. Meeting with clients/customers/potential customers. If every time a person is nervous they assume ill intent of others at the slightest hint, they are going to be problematic. They don't intend to be problematic, but they are.
The point of a mechanism like that given is that you don't have to make a judgement. It's self selecting. In this specific scenario, the kotlin example interviewer a) laughed b) offended a person and c) probably wasn't even aware they had caused offense and d) kept the person out of the company.
If b) had gone down the other path, the person isn't offended and (all else equal) is still enthused to work at the company.
> The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with.
Whew.
The saving grace here is you're so cavalier about this sort of borderline paranoia and megalomania.
It tells me you won't hide it well, and the shrewd candidates will run for the hills.
It really is helpful, socially, to assume good intent. It avoids unnecessary arguments (/wars). Additionally, if you spend a little time digging in when you have assumed bad intent, you'll almost always find that the person has good intent, there has just been a misunderstanding, or miscommunication, or they face very different incentives or have a different set of underlying assumptions.
As for megalomania - it's likely we live in different locations/and or work in different industries. Where I am, interviewers don't hold the power. Candidates do. Especially candidates who are judged to be good. Good candidates make a judgement call as to where they want to work because they have many options. They exercise said power, negotiate higher salaries, and leave if they don't like the arrangement. And good for them, they have in demand skills and a good attitude.
I understand it isn't like this in all locations/industries.
If I caught a whiff of half what you've said here I'd end the on-site early. My industry is too competitive to put up with this sort of childish antics.
I'm quite certain you have good intent. Maybe you've had truly rude people interview you, they exist. Maybe you have worked with a lot of jerks who were rude. Maybe we just have different definitions of "judge".
The most generous take of my intent is ~ "this person really wants to avoid a dysfunctional work culture".
If you assume good intent, you'll face fewer problems in life. It's one of the few pieces of advice that actually work with few exceptions. If you catch a whiff of something, and it smells like bad intent, maybe forcing yourself to rethink it from another perspective will work.
By the way, you should let HR know about your helpful intent to shield the company. They should have a wonderful commendation for you, and some COBRA paperwork to go with it.
This is an example of assuming ill-intent. I didn't say I'd try to make people uncomfortable. Here is what I actually wrote:
>I think I'd be happy to laugh and offend said people as a mechanism to keep them away
An interpretation of this assuming good intent is: "If I find something funny, I'll laugh. If it has the side effect of keeping people out who assume everyone has ill-intent, that's fine. "
An interpretation assuming ill intent is: "i deliberately laugh to see who it upsets".
Most people have read what I said in the generous way. There are a lot of upvotes. Hacker News isn't filled with a-holes who get excited when someone says something awful.
This is the definition of ill-intent.
This is what intentionally making someone uncomfortable looks like.
Glad you learned something today :)
You might as well save your breath at this point, you'll notice everything I've said was a very simple point, and every reply you've had was a roundabout treatise trying to pivot away from <very simple point>.
That's because what you're doing is defending an indefensible position.
-
If you had just said it was a joke it would have been better for everyone involved... what a way to live life if this is really what you're about.