Better question, does it matter? As you said, bad hires are expensive. We aren't talking about language barriers here, we're talking about behavior that comes across as (your words) capital A asshole. If the person is going to behave that way on the job and it drags the team down, does it matter why they behave that way? I know I wouldn't want to be stuck working with them.

> It also goes to the WASP distaste or disdain for the Jewish style of discourse. Historically, someone at IBM saying a candidate was brusque could quite easy be code for saying they were Jewish.

I have the kind of personality which likes facts, details, debate, argument, pedantry, technicalities, obscurities, etc – given that, I get on quite well with other people who have that kind of personality. I'm not especially bothered by bluntness, and though I try not to be too blunt, I probably am sometimes anyway. But I know some people sometimes perceive personalities like mine as "rude" – possibly even "assholes". When my wife and I were getting married, I got in a dispute with the church secretary over what kind of proof of identity documents we were legally required to produce. I pointed out to her she was wrong, and that if she read section 42 of the Marriage Act 1961 it should be obvious to her that she was wrong. She was very offended by that suggestion. In hindsight, I try to see things from her point of view – she's probably never read any legislation in her life, wouldn't even know where to look for it, the idea of reading legislation sounds scary, she isn't used to reading legal texts and might struggle to understand it (or worry that she would), etc. Whereas, for me, I'm the kind of person who reads legislation for fun, and of course I'm going to read the laws about marriage before getting married – and the thought that most other people aren't like me isn't the first thought that pops into my head, I have a somewhat autistic mind which gravitates to the facts immediately, and is slower to think about the impact those facts might have on the thoughts and feelings of others. Then again, the thought that there are people like me probably didn't pop into her head either, and if it did she would likely have been far less offended.

I'm not Jewish myself (mostly Irish Catholic ancestry), but I actually have an appreciation for some of the bluntness of traditional Jewish culture – Israelis often call themselves sabra, after the Hebrew word for the prickly pear, the idea being that while they do have somewhat of a reputation for rudeness and bluntness on the surface (the prickles), it hides a soft and sweet interior (as the prickly pear itself does). I suppose I have some appreciation for that cultural trait precisely because some aspects of it overlap with my own personality.

Also, I'm Australian, and Australians have somewhat of a reputation for being blunt, rude, overly informal, particularly by American standards. I remember once reading an interview with an outgoing US Ambassador to Australia (I wish I could find it now) explaining how he was a bit taken aback by this cultural difference at first but got used to it over time. On the other hand, one of my Argentine colleagues once told me that I am "extremely polite" – I think in certain ways I actually am – although I also have absolutely no clue what Argentine ideas of politeness are and how they may compare to Australian or American or Israeli or whatever politeness standards.

Anyway, my point is, sometimes "drags the team down" may be because a person really is behaving in an objectively problematic way, other times "drags the team down" may actually be because the existing team has insufficient awareness of cultural and personal diversity, and is being overly judgemental of someone who is different from them. I'm sure both sometimes happen.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31267442

This isn't being blunt, this being a straight up dick. I hope you went back and apologized for acting out later. If this is your definitions of bluntness and is standard fare for your behavior, you are actually the capital A Asshole the comment chain is referring to. It's not about the truth of the matter, it's the total lack of empathy in your entire comment about this interaction.

I have no empathy for her? So, when I said "In hindsight, I try to see things from her point of view...", that isn't an exercise in empathy? And did she have empathy for me? When I said "the thought that there are people like me probably didn't pop into her head either" – isn't that pointing to a gap which likely exists in her own empathy?

Have you ever heard of the English autistic researcher, Dr Damian Milton's, "double empathy problem"? Autistic people are commonly said to lack empathy, but actually most non-autistic people have at least as great a lack of empathy towards the autistic. I think it is relevant here, because I very much can see my own autistic traits at work in the situation we are discussing.

Finally, where's your empathy for me in your comment? I can't detect any. If a "total lack of empathy" makes one a "dick" and a "capital A asshole", what does that make you?

Empathy is a skill high-functioning people on the spectrum can learn. I spent a lot of time in therapy as a child pretty much solely focused on learning empathy. Your behavior showed a complete disregard for her emotional well-being and _her feelings_, which is synonymous with a total lack of empathy. That you are capable of commenting on Hacker News and getting married means you could learn the skill too; everyone has to learn it, like any other skill, and it doesn't come easy to people on the spectrum.

I understand the double empathy problem and I do not agree with it whatsoever. My exposure to adults on the spectrum who wear their autism as a badge of pride or disclaimer in conversation do so as a means to dodge responsibility for their part in a social interaction because it makes them uncomfortable.

> Finally, where's your empathy for me in your comment?

Doesn't feel good to have your intellectual / personal short comings aired out in public does it?

> What does that make you?

Speaking how you speak to others, but to you. As a narrative decision.

Also, you weren't actually there, so you don't know exactly what I said or what she said–I mentioned the gist of the message, but no details on exactly how it was conveyed–which obviously makes a significant difference. You are drawing a lot of conclusions based on very limited information.

> Empathy is a skill high-functioning people on the spectrum can learn.

Have you actually learned that skill? Of course it would be unfair to judge you on the basis of a single interaction – but you aren't demonstrating any of that skill here.

> Speaking how you speak to others, but to you. As a narrative decision.

I don't go around calling other people "dicks" or "assholes", especially not directly addressed to them, but to be honest I don't even use that kind of language in the third person. (I suppose I did suggest that maybe your abusive language directed at me could possibly be better applied to you, but I said that more in the hope that you would see the contradiction and withdraw it, rather than because I think you actually deserve to be called that). Nor am I prone to draw conclusions about other people, such that they have a "total lack of empathy", based on their brief descriptions of social interactions which I didn't personally witness, and hence couldn't possibly have a complete picture of. I think the way you and I speak is actually quite different, and a lot of the flaws which you are accusing me of having, your own behaviour actually exhibits them much more than my own.

I have the sense things I have said have triggered an emotional reaction on your part, and a lot of what you are saying is really more about your own emotions than about anything I have said.

> I have the sense things I have said have triggered an emotional reaction on your part, and a lot of what you are saying is really more about your own emotions than about anything I have said.

You're so very close to getting it. This entire interaction has been incredibly frustrating to you, because I engaged in it in bad faith from a place of (supposed) irrational emotional anger, same as you described. I called you out on a personal failing, and it caused you some level of frustration or hurt. Even when I have over-emphasized the point and flipped the tables, you're still not getting it. You treated that poor lady horribly, more horribly than I have treated you (unless you really think a random curse word on the internet is more devastating than being told in as many words, to your face, that you're too stupid to do your job, which is what you described your interaction as) and you're ready to back out of this interaction. The tables are reversed and you think I'm an asshole. What do you think that lady thinks about you?

You claimed before that "She did not consider that you might not follow the same social contract as everyone else" – but isn't your own (self-confessed) bad faith engagement here a violation of most people's social contract, and especially the social contract of this site? (Read the Guidelines.)

> unless you really think a random curse word on the internet is more devastating than being told in as many words, to your face

You are making assumptions. Was the interaction in-person, via email, via phone? I haven't said. You can't really judge an interaction you know nothing about except a very brief description. Our interaction here is as much "to your face" as any email exchange would be–given which, your ideas about what differences exist between the two interactions are very questionable.

> that you're too stupid to do your job

How is it telling someone "you're too stupid to do your job" to point out they've got the facts about something wrong, and that you've got concrete evidence to substantiate that?

I mean, if a colleague tells me I'm wrong about X, and shows me something which proves I'm wrong – I don't interpret that as "you're too stupid to do your job". My response is "thanks for enlightening me". In fact, just a few weeks ago I was telling people "Cassandra can't do X" (I forget exactly what X was now) and one of my colleagues said "no you're wrong" and sent me some blog post pointing out how to do that thing with Cassandra. I was thankful to him for correcting me, I didn't take his correction as having any implication on my own intelligence or ability. Sure, being shown to be wrong feels somewhat uncomfortable, but adults should be able to handle that feeling. And it wouldn't matter if it wasn't a colleague – such as a customer, or a complete random stranger.

> The tables are reversed and you think I'm an asshole.

As I said, I don't like language like "asshole", I generally avoid it. But, what are you doing here? You think I behaved inappropriately in a situation – possibly you are right, possibly you are wrong, you don't really know enough about it to actually judge – and so you think that by behaving inappropriately to me you are going to convince me of something? Whatever you are trying to do, I don't think it is thought through very well, and I'd question its compatibility with this site's Guidelines.

> What do you think that lady thinks about you?

How would you know what she thinks? You've never met her. I've actually spoken to her quite a few times in the years since that event, and (as far as I can tell) the interactions have been positive, and (other than that one occasion) I can't remember her seeming upset about any of them. (None of our subsequent interactions have involved anyone disagreeing with anyone else's facts, for what it's worth.)

>> In hindsight, I try to see things from her point of view – she's probably never read any legislation in her life

with a real understanding of yourself

>> I know some people sometimes perceive personalities like mine as "rude" – possibly even "assholes".

And an understanding of the friction...

>> the thought that most other people aren't like me isn't the first thought that pops into my head yet it is full of love and care for another person.

Thank you for taking the time to write this in response to my post.

I don't believe we have to classify ourselves as autistic just because we like "facts, debate, argument, pedantry, technicalities..." in fact, my entire culture thrives on exactly these things and it's been fairly successful if you consider surviving mass genocide for thousands of years, and surviving current hatred for our existence right here and now, to be a form of success. I just had a long conversation with my girlfriend tonight about this. She left an extremely repressive evangelical home in Texas at 17, moved to Chicago and ended up knowing a lot of Jewish people, but her mind works the same way. She said it's what you learn, and I said no, it's a kind of formatting. It changes how you learn and what you learn. It apportions different spaces and relationships on the hard drive. It's not a religion, to me, I'm an atheist. It's a type of questioning, seeking, which is consistently going to be offensive to people who want to defend the status quo. And - skissane - you're a mensch, because you didn't want your wife to be hurt and you asked yourself if you'd put her through unnecessary stress. It's gotta be coupled with an understanding of people's limitations and making them feel OK. That's why I said you have to know what culture you're dealing with. What I'm describing here isn't "Judaism", and very religious Jews would likely disagree because they're hardliners. It's the liberal western freedom-loving offspring of a very old religion that argues constantly but looks for accord, and humanity. I find the same tolerance, forbearance and questioning mentality in Sikhs, Druze, and Irish Catholics, all people who are too jaded to take religion literally, who also (1) loved debating the written word, (2) have been seeds of rebellion, and (3) borne the brunt of genocidal oppression. A very specific cocktail. But you can find it here and there in the rebels in every culture. The only one which elevates tendentiousness to the highest form of merit is Judaism, by a process of elimination.

Anyway, I've lived in Australia (not rude by American standards), and Argentina (assholes, but I love 'em), and have family in Israel (just completely uncontrollable, uncouth, wildly rude like Italians or Spaniards, where I also lived) - in the grand scheme of things, all these places respect intellect. Places which don't respect intellect, per se, but prefer submission, are like Thailand. I love Thai people, don't get me wrong. But they are in fear of their hierarchy, and gripe about their place in the world. Go over to Vietnam and everyone thinks freely, works two jobs and goes to university and learns three languages; if I had to bet on the future of authoritarianism in those two countries I would suggest that Thailand is doomed and Vietnam will be the third major democracy in Asia along with Korea and Japan; a Vietnamese revolution is a half-generation away, because they're formatted to think independently. Partly thanks to France and America; and knowing they beat both in a war.

By the same token, America is totally fucked. Because the people here who look for liberty are authoritarians who've never lacked for it, and the anti-authoritarians in this country apparently have decided that liberty is dangerous and anathema to their agenda. This leaves me as an American Jew in a perilous situation, a mere 50 years after IBM routinely discriminated against my people for being too talky, and what, like 75 years after IBM built the mechanical calculators for nazi germany to tally up dead Jews.

So, sorry for the horribly long ramble. But I wish I was still in Oz, you sound like someone I'd really enjoy a pint with. Sorry if I'd talk your ear off. But your story was quite well written.

As someone who views most psychiatric diagnoses (autism/ASD included) as being primarily cultural constructs (with the science behind them being quite weak, far weaker than most people think), the suggestion that some of these things labelled as “autistic traits” are really just traits which some cultures (especially mainstream Anglo-American culture) disapprove of, is one I have a lot of sympathy for.

Well, to be honest I think a lot of "capital A assholes" actually are neurodiverse – if not in the more common sense of ASD/ADHD/etc, then in the sense of narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc. But, there are limits to the extent of neurodiversity anyone can handle: schizophrenia is a form of neurodiversity too, but a candidate who exhibits florid symptoms of psychosis in a job interview is obviously not a suitable candidate at this time (but they might make an excellent candidate in the future if their psychosis remits). If someone's behaviour is somewhat outside the norm, but they show some insight, willingness to take on feedback and attempt to change, etc, they can still make a positive contribution to a team. If they appear to have no insight, no ability or willingness to consider the feedback of others, no ability or willingness to change or compromise or meet others half-way – it probably isn't going to work out.

> However, based on my (admittedly anecdotal, but extensive) experience situation A is probably something like 95% of the time and situation B is probably something like 5% of the time.

Do you actually know the split is really 95% vs 5%? Is it possible that, some of that 95% really belongs to the 5% but you didn't realise it?

A couple of strategies which might help: (1) force yourself to stop and think about other possible explanations, and whether you have any reason to think any of those other explanations could apply in that particular case; (2) try to gently broach the subject with the candidate, and try to see if you can get any information on the interaction from their perspective. Possibly, their behaviour may seem less unreasonable when you understand it from their point of view. Also, you can judge how open they are to receive feedback and responding to it – there is a big difference between "yeah, I could have handed that situation better" and a rigid insistence that they did nothing wrong.

I'm sceptical of intentionally putting any kind of "hidden test" in a hiring process. When the process is totally transparent – directly ask relevant questions about technical skills/knowledge/experience, soft skills, etc – I think that is fairest on the candidate, and minimises the risk of unintentional indirect discrimination–and I think lawyers who specialise in employment discrimination law would probably agree with that. I don't think that means one has to completely ignore any incidental feedback outside of the transparent formal process, but there is a big difference between incidental feedback and intentionally engineering a "hidden test". Also, I don't think one should rule out an otherwise good candidate on the basis of such incidental feedback without some serious thought and investigation.