To be fair, in the little interview snippet, he keeps his "Don't stress it too much, live life and have fun," tone. He specifically says that he wants to help people with an area of their lives that they find crippling. So, not necessarily hypocritical.
Here's the thing: people, especially people who are trying to sell something, lie. Sometimes they lie a lot. And the people at the very top? Usually are lying nearly all the time.
And when you've got something that's nearly unverifiable, like a person's true motivation, they have an incentive to appear in the most favorable light possible.
The sad truth is that most good looking people are also fairly smart, good genetics seem to be blessed on some. The slightly smarter are the MBA type folk, and next are engineers, finally the super smart are usually the scientist and the mathematicians.
I disagree - it's not a matter of being smarter or dumber, but of the kind of intelligence a person has.
Whenever there's an invite for the groups at work that go out to bars or have dinner, I go, but those are very rare... and I always manage to piss someone off at them, which is probably part of why they're rare.
Do you have any idea what you're doing to make people angry?
I also joined a gym, but I don't understand what that's supposed to accomplish, other than physical fitness.
That's not a bad purpose.
It's not a very good environment for meeting people because everyone just minds their own business. I quit that too after the entire staff collectively mocked me the time I asked for a band-aid. (Not immediately, just didn't renew.)
...
I don't know what to say to that.
Most people don't simply choose someone at random and decide to torment them. Even those that do, don't pick the SAME person over and over.
Something in your appearance or demeanor, or something else you're doing HAS to be causing this sort of thing.
If you can't tell at all what you might be doing, I'd suggest reading books on human behavior and body language. Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is a good one, and should be able to be had for cheap.
Riddle me this: why is it that if someone has trouble in math or something, other people who can do it will offer to help, but if someone is socially inept, the immediate reaction is to ostracize the person rather than offering to give them social coaching? I have helped people all my life in technical areas where they needed it, but not one time has anyone made any such offer to me.
Social proof.
We judge people partially based on who they associate with. If you are as off putting as you say you are, people may be afraid to be seen associating with you because you will drag them down.
For a short time it sucks for those 50 people, but in aggregate society is paying less for an item which frees up more money for investing that one hopes would lead to jobs that would hire back those 50 people + more.
It was completely safe by any objective evaluation, and the officer made it clear it was going to be pointless to try to contest it in court, as it was his word against mine.
I sometimes wonder if some of the modern ills are because society has become TOO polite. While your statement is figuratively true, to the best of my knowledge RIAA execs have not been actually spat upon, much less as a daily occurrence. Perhaps if that was an actual risk, less corporate execs would do things that might inspire it.
I'm sure that the people making the decisions at the highest levels of these corporations are never in direct contact with the unwashed masses, who would be the ones spitting on them.
It might be worth pointing out that hardly anyone experiences a free market in the purest sense of the term. Even so, MAP does not impede a free market. In the majority of market segments there are multiple tiers and multiple marketers within each of those tiers. If Brand X requires a MAP contract and Brand Y does not the market is still free because there are multiple choices available at the wholesale and retail level.
In a free market, minimum pricing wouldn't work because there would be multiple other sellers of identical products. These other sellers would have an incentive to undercut the first seller's terms of sale.
Lawyers have an organization that made it illegal to practice law unless you are in the club, which they control. IT consultants have no such organization.
Being in the right does not mean you don't get hurt.
Sometimes bad people get away with things, and there's nothing you can do to get them back. You just have to do the best you can to protect yourself, and changing your phone number is a relatively minor thing to do to end this.
If their getting to the interview stage then the resume is not likely the culprit. Unless the poster is a minority, that's the only reason (I can think of) any company would waste time interviewing a person who's resume is not a fit for the job (ie to meet some interview quota, I don't know if that happens
It absolutely does happen - I know people who are on interview committees who have said that they already knew who they were going to pick, but had to interview a certain number of people.
While the people who are responding to you may have said that your tech support background was the reason, it's probably just because they don't want to make you feel bad. They already know about your background before they interview you. Interviewing is a real pain in the ass. Nobody is going to look at a resume and think, "Hmm... here's someone we really don't want. But, hey, let's interview him for fun."
But there are people who think "I know I want to hire my friend, but the higher-ups are requiring us to interview at least three people for every position. So we'll take the application my friend sent in and the first two other applicants who can make the times I set for the interview and get those over with."
In more bureaucratic companies, it might be the case that you don't have a chance before you even walk through the door.
Once I knew a good DBA that got hired by a typical crappy company as an "exempt" employee. One week she worked 38 hours, the next she worked 42 to make up for the 38. They docked her pay for the 38 hour week but didn't pay her for the extra 2 hours she worked the next week.
By docking her pay for working less than 40 hours, they are admitting that she's not really salaried and she could sue for back pay. Well, she USED to be able to.
I'd be tempted only insomuch as it would allow me to retire early, and do the things I really want to do. If I had to do it for another 40 years, then no way.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the thing: people, especially people who are trying to sell something, lie. Sometimes they lie a lot. And the people at the very top? Usually are lying nearly all the time.
And when you've got something that's nearly unverifiable, like a person's true motivation, they have an incentive to appear in the most favorable light possible.
No, "negging" is giving a backhanded compliment. It's intended to damage the target's self-esteem.
One of the reasons why the PUA community is morally bankrupt.
I disagree - it's not a matter of being smarter or dumber, but of the kind of intelligence a person has.
Do you have any idea what you're doing to make people angry?
That's not a bad purpose.
I don't know what to say to that.
Most people don't simply choose someone at random and decide to torment them. Even those that do, don't pick the SAME person over and over.
Something in your appearance or demeanor, or something else you're doing HAS to be causing this sort of thing.
If you can't tell at all what you might be doing, I'd suggest reading books on human behavior and body language. Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is a good one, and should be able to be had for cheap.
Social proof.
We judge people partially based on who they associate with. If you are as off putting as you say you are, people may be afraid to be seen associating with you because you will drag them down.
I've seen job ads that completely exclude this type of experience from consideration.
But he can't say to the jury "my client is innocent".
I think I see the problem with your argument.
Cops lie.
I'm sure that the people making the decisions at the highest levels of these corporations are never in direct contact with the unwashed masses, who would be the ones spitting on them.
Also, a country with the label "communist" was our biggest enemy for a few decades.
In a free market, minimum pricing wouldn't work because there would be multiple other sellers of identical products. These other sellers would have an incentive to undercut the first seller's terms of sale.
Very few people are "top notch" candidates. Most people are average.
I don't think that would deter the ones who have one on death row
I want to see Bush be the first president to pardon himself. I'd love to see the Supreme Court case that would trigger.
Lawyers have an organization that made it illegal to practice law unless you are in the club, which they control. IT consultants have no such organization.
That'd be the preferred solution if you actually had the power to solve the problem. But if you don't, shifting it is the best you can do.
Being in the right does not mean you don't get hurt.
Sometimes bad people get away with things, and there's nothing you can do to get them back. You just have to do the best you can to protect yourself, and changing your phone number is a relatively minor thing to do to end this.
Really? I'm fairly sure I couldn't even NAME six or seven hundred thousand people.
Yes, the Milgram series of experiments indicate that human beings tend towards being complete douchebags.
It absolutely does happen - I know people who are on interview committees who have said that they already knew who they were going to pick, but had to interview a certain number of people.
But there are people who think "I know I want to hire my friend, but the higher-ups are requiring us to interview at least three people for every position. So we'll take the application my friend sent in and the first two other applicants who can make the times I set for the interview and get those over with."
In more bureaucratic companies, it might be the case that you don't have a chance before you even walk through the door.
By docking her pay for working less than 40 hours, they are admitting that she's not really salaried and she could sue for back pay. Well, she USED to be able to.
I'd be tempted only insomuch as it would allow me to retire early, and do the things I really want to do. If I had to do it for another 40 years, then no way.
All contracts are coercive - give me X amount of dollars or go without electricity, for instance.