kwhitegocubs wrote:How could an inanimate object speak volumes about something? I'm not trying to be overly literal here, but would not the interviewer have the capacity to ask, straightforwardly, any and every pertinent question they wanted to the interviewee, including (in this instance) queries about their clothes? It may relay to the interviewer that this person does not agree with the normative social paradigm, but said interviewer COULD request clarification on the reasoning by which the person disagrees.
Yes, they could ask, but would the answer matter? The damage is done at this point. I'll concede that if the answer is REALLY GOOD it could convince the interviewer to overlook the non-professional (as defined by society's ingrained standard) clothing. But in this scenario, it was the interviewee's choice to wear this clothing, so the answer likely would not provide any comfort.
kwhitegocubs wrote: Also, it seems to me that what you have written is a far more blatant "disrespect" of both the interviewee and the (looser) paradigm he/she operates within than any perceived disrespect the interviewer could draw from the interviewee's clothing.
Not really sure from where this statement draws its support. I wrote that someone chose to wear a certain set of clothing in a hypothetical and how that clothing and choice would be interpreted by the majority of interviewers. While I would agree with the interviewer, I don't think that shows "blatant disrespect" for the interviewee, it just shows that I would certainly judge this person by their choice to wear this clothing to this interview.
Moreover, you've just asserted that the interviewer's standard of "appropriateness" has some validity and authority, while the interviewee's does not. Would this not indicate a rigidity of thinking on the part of the interviewer and/or you?
Yes, that's the paradigm within which we live. When dealing with someone operating within a paradigm, unless the interviewee can shatter the interviewer's world-view and convince them to see everything in new light within the 45 minutes that the interview will probably last... yes, the standard of appropriateness dictated by this paradigm (the interviewer's) DOES have validity and authority in this scenario. I would think that not playing by the interviewer's rules significantly decreases the interviewees chances of being accepted.
kwhitegocubs wrote: Would the entire notion of firmly judging someone without asking for an explanation when they COULD request an explanation not showcase a lack of critical thinking skills and analysis?
No. Just because people make snap judgments does not mean they lack critical thinking skills. EVERYONE makes them. Conscious or un/subconscious. They are actually critical to helping the human brain process so much information.
kwhitegocubs wrote:How does clothing differ from dialect? This person would likely be ill-suited to hiring or representing persons with cultural norms different than theirs. They'd likely frown upon persons who speak with an accent or word choice derived from their region, ethnicity, or the fact that English is their second language. Would this interviewer, if a Republican, not hire a Democrat, even if the job at hand was not pertinent to applied politics?
You're reaching here. These are assumptions / conjecture in the sense that these statements have not been disproven, not in the sense that they seem correct to me.
kwhitegocubs wrote:If you are looking for a typing secretary, don't dismiss the 90wpm girl wearing a goth shirt and makeup, dismiss the well-dressed man because he only has one hand. Haha, hammer-handed example, but it just popped into my head.
If all I'm looking for is a typing secretary, I would have subjected someone to a test to see how many wpm they can type and written in their offer letter that they have to adhere to the dress code.
kwhitegocubs wrote:Social standards of clothing are deeply ingrained into our society, and because of that we don't look at them with the same distance and critical eye as we do a lot of equally frivolous and unimportant characteristics. We, as society, take these arbitrary standards and elevate them to a stature of symbolic meaning they clearly do not deserve.
I almost agree with this. Standards of clothing are certainly deeply ingrained. We don't analyze the use of judging one's clothing critically; it is deemed acceptable. But, put simply, people like it when things "look nice". What looks nice is defined culturally. it can and will change over time. I think that looking nice (in the context of this hypothetical interview) does deserve an elevation because it shows that someone wanted to make an effort to be presentable in every aspect that they could control. But hey, if everyone does it, nobody gets a realized gain. So all the interviewee needs to do in order to avoid disadvantage is put some clothes on.
Can you tell I'm having a slow day at work today?