Adding to your point. Why arent we saying that the "noraml" people are the ones bad at interacting with neurodivergents. Their supposed social skills are so limited that they can only work with people who act and behave like them.

That’s an uncharitable interpretation. But if that is what it ends up meaning then i do agree, that’s bigotry.

A more charitable interpretation might mean “the candidate is able to clearly explain (through some medium: orally, typing, etc) how their code works, and why they picked that solution. They were also able to correctly answer follow up questions”. If _that_ is what is meant, then that’s not bigotry IMO.

I wouldn't say uncharitable, just that the best-intentioned version is pretty naïve, especially in the current political climate where every effort to bring that kind of inclusivity and open-mindedness to the table is being actively regressed.

For everyone here who appreciates the effort to remove unconscious bias from these decisions as much as possible, because they genuinely want to find the most capable person for the job regardless of their personal preferences, there's still a whole world out there where that bias is not only desirable but celebrated.

> If "those who they are able to effectively interact with" ends up meaning only people who look, act, or believe like them, then yes it absolutely is.

It's everyone. You don't get to cherry pick.

That's why hiring managers should focus on soft skills. Their job is to hire the guy that fits in your organization and everyone in it is able to effortlessly work with. When hiring managers do their job, you don't need to go way out of your way to suffer toxic people who are utterly unpleasant to work with. Hiring managers filter them out. Problem averted.