>

There are times that compatability/likeability can be a bias we actively want to discourage.  While I agree wit hyou about the team player aspect, there are times where there is the more nebulous "culture fit" where people will use that as an excuse to keep a woman or black person out of an office because it will change the office culture, and that falls under the "compatability" context.
You could also read your post from the outside looking in. Imagine you are a recruiter or hiring manager. Do you think you want to bring someone on who thinks, "I should've been teaching the teacher". Someone who says things like that might not be the type of person others want to work with. >

I would never say such a thing publicly... 
With that said, it would be shockingly cruel to disqualify someone from life-enhancing opportunities on the basis of an arbitrary comment and with no further context. I would hope these strict standards would be in place for all applicants, and not just me. >


… it would be shockingly cruel to disqualify someone from life-enhancing opportunities…

I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. No hiring recruiter is thinking, “I’m going to ruin this person’s career”, and they also aren’t thinking “this person’s career deserves a leg up”. They aren’t passing a judgement on your life.
To the extent that ever happens, that’s a school thing. Your guidance counselor or a professor might try to push you forward. A professor who hates you might even try to sabotage you. But in the job market you’ve moved past that into a new question.
When a recruiter looks at you/your resume, he’s deciding “among all these people, which is the best fit for this particular position”. And I’m not going to tell you bias doesn’t come into that, because it absolutely does. But it’s not about your life. It’s only about this one job and this one hiring manager and his one favorite candidate.
That’s what makes this such a tricky social problem to solve. How do you stop that hiring manager from showing bias? You can’t just hand off the process to an objective formula, because there isn’t one. Intangibles do matter. >

I think you read too much into a sarcastic comment. 
The fact is it WOULD be shockingly cruel to disqualify someone for an arbitrary, made-up reason when they put so much effort and hope into the interview process. In worst case scenarios, a hiring manager being so careless can trigger a multi-million dollar lawsuit against their company.  
I focus on biases in all interviews now to get an advantage. I've had good success. What I feel a moral obligation to do is to wake people up who may not be as fortunate as I am to know that any of this is real, and who keep trying time and time again and finding closed doors, or finding themselves in a job they can tolerate, but that is really below them. >

Whoa...hold up now.  

The fact is it WOULD be shockingly cruel to disqualify someone for an arbitrary, made-up reason when they put so much effort and hope into the interview process. In worst case scenarios, a hiring manager being so careless can trigger a multi-million dollar lawsuit against their company

Noone owes you a job and I don't know what lawsuit you think you could bring based on you saying a bone-headed thing in an interview.  Employers don't have to give a reason for not hiring. >


Noone owes you a job and I don't know what lawsuit you think you could bring based on you saying a bone-headed thing in an interview. Employers don't have to give a reason for not hiring.

It is literally illegal for employers to discriminate based on protected characteristics, at least here in the US. As far as I'm concerned, I literally am owed equal consideration as others in application processes. 
However, the point is moot, as I've been employed full time for many years, earning a decent amount of pay and have amassed huge amounts in savings. >

Discrimination based on protected characteristics is illegal.  Saying something dumb in an interview isn't protected. >

I mean, I worked in HR as a recruiter for 6 years, and this post reads like it was written by a bad candidate. The total lack of self-awareness and arrogance came through strongly. “Soft skills” are a thing, and if you were as smart as it seems you think you are, you’d realize that in 2022 there are enough people fighting for jobs that there’s likely to be candidates as smart as you who are also like-able. >

Bias:  preferring one person, thing, or idea in a way that is unfair.

I was denied from a PERFECT fit for a position, after writing a PERFECT essay

Would you say that this statement is biased? >

I would call it hyperbole to make a point. >

Just saying...I spent a fair amount of time in a hiring position and applicants often think they are perfect when they actually have no idea what we're looking for.  One of the biggest things we looked for was people with accountability and the certain knowledge that they are NOT perfect. >

This sure reads to me as bias. But in a completely different way than you think. Seems your bias is leading you to believe everything you do is perfect and no one else could possibly have done something better than you did >

Yeah, their "I should have gotten an A in writing" and "I wrote a perfect essay" really showcases that.  Personally, I want to know what a "perfect essay" for a job looks like. >

I want to know what job needs an essay, much less what “perfect” even means for a subjective based assessment. >

I mean...who says that the job market has equal opportunities for all?
But just to start with, let's look at your example of incompetent supervisors.  Have you heard of the Peter Principle?  It says that employees rise in a company until they reach a level of incompetence.
Essentially, people get promoted, and only stop when they stop excelling at their job because they got promoted into a position they weren't fit for.  That isn't an example of "non-equal opportunities" because anyone could have taken that path, it's instead an example of bad promoting practices. >


I mean...who says that the job market has equal opportunities for all? 

Many people would consider what I said controversial. If it was openly admitted there were a lot of biases, then I'm all for that. However this is an extremely uncomfortable and sensitive topic to bring up. 

Have you heard of the Peter Principle? It says that employees rise in a company until they reach a level of incompetence.

Doesn't explain away much at all. I'm talking about general opportunities and even general entry level positions. >


Many people would consider what I said controversial. If it was openly admitted there were a lot of biases, then I'm all for that. However this is an extremely uncomfortable and sensitive topic to bring up. 

Would they though? Workplace discrimination based on race/gender/poltics/health etc... Is a common part of public discourse. To the point of being the centre of several major policy initiatives in most western countries  
And I doubt you'll find anyone in charge of hiring that is going to pretend that personality and how well you'll fit in to the existing team isnt a big factor in their decision making process, i am and i certainly wont >


personality and how well you'll fit in to the existing team isnt a big factor in their decision making process

Since we humans are incredibly biased, using subjective measurements will lead to biased results. Now Im not saying team spirit isn't important, but many times this is used as an excuse just because of their race or that they are slightly different. In my experience, "how well they fit in the team" is a way of washing your hands of any guilt because its not "you", its just that "they wont fit the team".
Most senseble people that you want to hire will get along just nicely. You could also have a trial period for this very reason if you have doubts. >


You could also have a trial period for this very reason if you have doubts.

Yeah that's the part of the hiring process where these things are going to be gauged. >

Idk how anyone can change your view here. All your arguments are 100% based on your personal view. Theres nothing to refute there because i cant tell you what you went through in life and, on the flip side, if i just told you my personal experiences or ones ive witnessed in real life, would that change your view? >

It's funny you mention this, because I didn't mention it in my post but...
Can you guess what led to my breakthrough realization? 
Academic research studies on bias and job market bias. They tested thousands of statistical samples and applicants, published results, and it has been a very active area of research for many years. Just search for them online and you'll find plenty. I've read a few and they've directly fed into many of my views. >

I feel you should edit your post and incluse these articles. Because right now your CMV post is a rant not and argument that can be refuted. >

This is 10000% someone that was coddled and told they were special growing up until the real world bitch slapped them in the face
And now it’s everyone else’s fault >

I dunno, I was coddled and told I was special growing up and now I'm awesome. Don't put this on their upbringing. :D >

The part I would argue with is not to say that bias doesn't exist in hiring but that the form of bias you were facing was not discrimination per se but an aversion to arrogance and other antisocial traits. >

You don't know anything about me though...for all you know I could be the nicest person (and I am). I would say it was somewhat arrogant of you to just assume. >

You thought that as a high school student you were should have been teaching the teacher. You thought there was no legitimate reason to be denied a job because your application was perfection. It sounds like it took you years to consider putting effort into your appearance in job interviews. I am making assumptions but your post reads as pretty full of yourself. >


aid I was not sure if I was good enough or not, you'd say "you need more confidence." If I said I did something perfectly and knew my worth, you'd say "they're arrogant." The answers

Lol, I'm sorry man. This post and your replies comprise \~the\~ cringiest sequence of statements I've ever seen on reddit. Congratulations, good sir.
Regarding your actual post - most credible research supports the claim that the US job market contains systemic biases, so I'm not sure why you want your view changed or why you didn't include the actual evidence in your OP. That said, I'm wholly unconvinced that this had anything in particular to do with your situation. Given your statements here, I'm genuinely surprised (and skeptical) that you ever found what you perceive to be a high quality job. Although, if you're the one labeling it as such, I suppose I'm a bit less surprised! >

You said all these degrading things about me and my claims about being denied opportunities, but...
You never paused to consider if it was true or not. >

Should this not be that recruiters and hiring managers have bias? How can an abstract concept have a personal bias? Human people have bias, and the infrastructure may reflect that bias but it isn't itself biased. It has no decision making ability.
Equal treatment is legislated, but for there to be equal opportunity there would need to be far more systematic structural changes, like education. >

I personally disagree with this argument, even though I have made similar arguments in the past for different subjects.  The reason why I disagree with it here is the "US Job Market" isn't just an abstract concept, but a series of systems that can have biases to it.  Saying "the people in the system" or "the people who make the system" have biases, not the system itself is splitting hairs pretty finely.
For example, let's say a person created a face scanner.  It matches black people at a lower success rate than white people.  That scanner has a bias, even though it has no "decision making ability" and only follows the instructions it was told to follow. >

That scanner doesn't exist and isn't used in the US job market. >

The scanner was an analogy for why a thing with no "decision making ability" can have biases.
Also, while not used in the US Job market(or, at least I hope not anyway,) scanners with that type of problem exist. >

Still not a lot to do with opportunities. A job opening is available for anyone to apply to. There are no walls. >

Yes, because once again, the point of that example was how a thing with no decision making ability can have biases.
But to address your comment further:
First off, not all job opening are available for anyone to apply to.  Some, you have to know a person.
Next, just because you can apply, doesn't mean there aren't biases in place.  For example, there is often a systemic bias against homeless people for not having a mailing address/phone number to use on applications. >

That's not really a bias, that's a requirement. Bias implies personal process, not a gatekept specific. If a homed person didn't provide a mailing address they wouldn't be considered for the same reason. >

Bias may imply personal process, but it actuality, it is not required. >


some other details about my physical appearance and background

So, you started lying on your resume, and it worked, and you think that this proves bias? >

Yes, lying can prove bias. 
You can view all hiring decisions as statistics - outcomes influenced by variables. If you change non-performance related variables like race, income, etc. on an application, and that effects your statistical chances of success, then that is proof of bias for something other than qualifications or work performance. >

You previously said this:

some other details about my physical appearance and background which I thought could be causing bias (which I won't get into). 

you said you won't go into what you changed, but essentially you are asking us to take your word on it.
Can you please be specific so we know exactly what changes you made?
Like, I don't see why "physical appearance" would be on most job applications.  What types of background info did you change?
It's easy to say "I made changes to prove there was bias against me, and the change in behavior showed it" but sometimes putting things onto your resume is just a warning sign.  Like, putting political opinions on an application likely will get you rejected for not knowing how to keep your mouth shut.
Like, how is income put on an application?  Race is generally removed from applications.
Also, I saw you said you were white, but had a non-white name?  Did I read that correctly? >

The only thing you can change about your background when applying for jobs is your work or education history. If they changed that to look better, we’ll yeah they’ll get a better result. >

I mean, they said they changed their name to a "Whiter sounding name".  That is a thing that can be discriminated upon. >

Without a doubt. But, they admitted to that outright, and then went on to say that they changed unnamed things about their background. I just can’t really imagine what you could change there, on a resume, that doesn’t jump right into unethical, and maybe even fraudulent, territory.
Edit: they mentioned race and income, but I believe you can’t ask about race most places. And for income, do they mean what they made previously? Risky lying on that since it can be checked with a phone call. >

There are a few things that can be proxies.  But I am curious what exactly they "changed" that they feel was innocent. >

Do you think likability is a trait that should be considered for hiring?  Or do you think this is a form of bias that should be eradicated as well? >

My (non-op) view on this is "likeability...not too much" but "able to work with for the next several years" more so.
I have a job that I nearly quit due to a coworker a few times.  I didn't, but if I get that feeling during an interview that I might quit if I had to work with them long term, I know other employees may feel that way as well and I would rather have the current employees than the new one. >

Precisely as I am using likeability synonymous with compatibility in this context.  But I am wondering if OP thinks that this is a form of bias that is unfair to the applicant.  For hiring, people analyze whether the person can work with the current team in play as this is an important factor.  So this means that even if person A has a slightly worse CV compared to person B, person A might be hired due to these other issues.