This is so interesting as a response. I feel like any description of a problem state can be described as "condescending" or "unempathetic" or what have you, which prevents our ability to talk about and solve problems.

The bottom line of the story is this man had invested a decade in a field in what I could at best describe autopilot - it didn't seem like he had and lost passion or was simply making a finance-driven decision.

At the end of the day this is pretty much what happened and to dress it up would hurt our ability to connect to the problem and think about it.

Happy to engage. referring to him multiple times as a "kid" in quotes from a "horrid memory" is not useful context. It sets the tone in a judgmental not open to interpretation way.

An alternative view of someone choosing to change career paths later in life is that you gain access to a different background than the other candidates in your pool. that may not be valuable in your case, but often it is. At the very least he's recognized a sunk cost and cut ties, which can be hard to do.

I appreciate what you are saying, I really do -- and I think there are scenarios where your second paragraph is completely applicable and true (I hired plenty other PhDs for these kinds of jobs so it's not an inherent bias) -- but in this case the hour I had spent interviewing him led much closer to the picture I painted in my first comment even if I phrased it unkindly.

But I do think there's communication value at describing things sharply. "John has been affected by alcoholism" and "John has fucked up his life by drinking - his wife left and took the kids" can refer to the same event, and while the first phrasing is more pleasant and respectful - it is the second phrasing that drives home the severity of what's actually happening.