Just in case you missed it...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

ETA: Why do you see EA's process as being limited to local level?

With having a differently-abled person interviewing a national-level appointment? I just want to make sure I'm tracking your question correctly.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

ETA: Why do you see EA's process as being limited to local level?

With having a differently-abled person interviewing a national-level appointment? I just want to make sure I'm tracking your question correctly.

- Doc

About seeking input from a differently-abled person about decision making that will directly affect them.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. Say you're someone like EA who works with differently-abled (DA) people, and you're looking to fill a position that works with DA people. His hiring practice makes sense. However, again, when you're working at a national level, and you're being appointed by the most powerful person in the world, while I would agree having experience working with DAs is absolutely necessary and commensurate with their qualifications, the sheer amount of executive responsibilities outweigh whether or not a DA senses some sort of innate empathy you may or may not possess. What's important is your ability to manage DA affairs from a national, international, and political perspective. To give any weight to a DA, in a one-on-one interview is beyond irresponsible in my opinion. They can't possibly have the perspective, nor the experience, to make a decision that'll impact national-level executive responsibilities. You're talking about an entirely wacky scenario that boggles the mind to even consider. It's laughable, and it has nothing to do with whether DAs are the cat's pajamas or not. In fact, I'm astonished and flummoxed we're even having this conversation right now.

But. Here we are. Because this is a discussion board and that's what we do.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Well. Say you're someone like EA who works with differently-abled (DA) people, and you're looking to fill a position that works with DA people. His hiring practice makes sense. However, again, when you're working at a national level, and you're being appointed by the most powerful person in the world, while I would agree having experience working with DAs is absolutely necessary and commensurate with their qualifications, the sheer amount of executive responsibilities outweigh whether or not a DA senses some sort of innate empathy you may or may not possess. What's important is your ability to manage DA affairs from a national, international, and political perspective. To give any weight to a DA, in a one-on-one interview is beyond irresponsible in my opinion. They can't possibly have the perspective, nor the experience, to make a decision that'll impact national-level executive responsibilities. You're talking about an entirely wacky scenario that boggles the mind to even consider. It's laughable, and it has nothing to do with whether DAs are the cat's pajamas or not. In fact, I'm astonished and flummoxed we're even having this conversation right now.

But. Here we are. Because this is a discussion board and that's what we do.

- Doc

Okay. Will you entertain a bit more flummoxing? You mentioned empathy. In my view, Warren in stating that she would allow a 9 year old trans child to interview and basically "okay" the candidate of Warren's choice, she's actually vetting them for both empathy and bias.

In other words, how do you serve what you can't understand or relate to? How do you determine needs and develop policy?

Do you think that empathy and bias are traits important (either way) to staffing the Sec. of Education post? If not, why not?

I mean, we've got someone right in the White House who blatantly lacks empathy and exudes bias of various sorts. How's that working out for us do you think?

[_EAllusion]

Well. Say you're someone like EAllusion who works with differently-abled (DA) people, and you're looking to fill a position that works with DA people. His hiring practice makes sense. However, again, when you're working at a national level, and you're being appointed by the most powerful person in the world, while I would agree having experience working with DAs is absolutely necessary and commensurate with their qualifications, the sheer amount of executive responsibilities outweigh whether or not a DA senses some sort of innate empathy you may or may not possess. What's important is your ability to manage DA affairs from a national, international, and political perspective. To give any weight to a DA, in a one-on-one interview is beyond irresponsible in my opinion. They can't possibly have the perspective, nor the experience, to make a decision that'll impact national-level executive responsibilities. You're talking about an entirely wacky scenario that boggles the mind to even consider. It's laughable, and it has nothing to do with whether DAs are the cat's pajamas or not. In fact, I'm astonished and flummoxed we're even having this conversation right now.

But. Here we are. Because this is a discussion board and that's what we do.

- Doc

I think this is election pandering on the part of Warren, though in a slightly cleaned up form is probably something she would do and is a more routine hiring practice than I think you might imagine. The point of doing this is not - as Markk imagined in pitch perfect "can you believe it?! tone - to outsource hiring decisions to head the Dept. of Education to a trans child. It's not even to have that kid act as some kind of tie-breaking recruiting judge. It's meant to be a way to test if the candidate can relate to vulnerable population that person is suppose to serve and to instill in the candidate that their job is to protect the vulnerable prior to them getting the job. It weeds out flawed people and sends a message to the person you ultimately hire about their mission. That's why I do it. That's why Jersey Girl might have experience with it in her field, and that's why Warren appears to have referenced it on the campaign trail, albeit in full pander mode.

You might say in reply, as you gesture at here, that the job has too many technical qualifications for a person to meet for this quality to be all that important. I really don't believe that is the case, though. Or, more accurately, I think the pool of people capable of the job is so large that you can find people who are sufficiently qualified that it's appropriate to want this of them too. The broad thrust of Warren's late career has been to find ways to represent the interests of relatively powerless people in complex bureaucracies where rules are gamed against them, so it is easy to imagine why such a thing would be a priority in the type of personal Warren would be after.

[_moksha]

A nine-year-old trans person would have a hard time making worse cabinet pick than Trump? Why? Most nine-year-olds do not know that many criminals and kooks.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I really like how you formatted your questions, because I can answer them since they're posed in a way that let's the reader know you want them answered. I wish more people would do that when engaging in long format Internet discussions.

Okay. Will you entertain a bit more flummoxing? You mentioned empathy. In my view, Warren in stating that she would allow a 9 year old trans child to interview and basically "okay" the candidate of Warren's choice, she's actually vetting them for both empathy and bias.

That was pretty apparent to me. I think those are qualities necessary for any level of responsibility when to comes to managing people.

In other words, how do you serve what you can't understand or relate to? How do you determine needs and develop policy?

That's why I mentioned that kind of experience is relevant to the person being interviewed. It should be gained through prior job experience and a good track record.

Do you think that empathy and bias are traits important (either way) to staffing the Sec. of Education post? If not, why not?

See above.

I mean, we've got someone right in the White House who blatantly lacks empathy and exudes bias of various sorts. How's that working out for us do you think?

I'm fairly certain I've made my views on Trump clear.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think this is election pandering on the part of Warren, though in a slightly cleaned up form is probably something she would do and is a more routine hiring practice than I think you might imagine. The point of doing this is not - as Markk imagined in pitch perfect "can you believe it?! tone - to outsource hiring decisions to head the Dept. of Education to a trans child. It's not even to have that kid act as some kind of tie-breaking recruiting judge. It's meant to be a way to test if the candidate can relate to vulnerable population that person is suppose to serve and to instill in the candidate that their job is to protect the vulnerable prior to them getting the job. It weeds out flawed people and sends a message to the person you ultimately hire about their mission. That's why I do it. That's why Jersey Girl might have experience with it in her field, and that's why Warren appears to have referenced it on the campaign trail, albeit in full pander mode.

You might say in reply, as you gesture at here, that the job has too many technical qualifications for a person to meet for this quality to be all that important. I really don't believe that is the case, though. Or, more accurately, I think the pool of people capable of the job is so large that you can find people who are sufficiently qualified that it's appropriate to want this of them too. The broad thrust of Warren's late career has been to find ways to represent the interests of relatively powerless people in complex bureaucracies where rules are gamed against them, so it is easy to imagine why such a thing would be a priority in the type of personal Warren would be after.

I think this is a spot on observation. It will be lost on anyone opposed to Warren as a Presidential candidate, I think. Personally I think it was a blunder on her part to pander to the crowd, but I'm not sure how you don't given the forum. That aside, the Right has lost all moral objectivity on virtually every issue by sustaining Trump's presidency. If anything, at this point, if a Trump supporter is mocking a policy one might be tempted to endorse it simply because their judgement is so bad, so thoroughly corrupted, that anything they hate is in actuality the right thing to support.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

I think this is election pandering on the part of Warren, though in a slightly cleaned up form is probably something she would do and is a more routine hiring practice than I think you might imagine. The point of doing this is not - as Markk imagined in pitch perfect "can you believe it?! tone - to outsource hiring decisions to head the Dept. of Education to a trans child. It's not even to have that kid act as some kind of tie-breaking recruiting judge. It's meant to be a way to test if the candidate can relate to vulnerable population that person is suppose to serve and to instill in the candidate that their job is to protect the vulnerable prior to them getting the job. It weeds out flawed people and sends a message to the person you ultimately hire about their mission. That's why I do it. That's why Jersey Girl might have experience with it in her field, and that's why Warren appears to have referenced it on the campaign trail, albeit in full pander mode.

Yeah, I mentioned the vulnerable population piece in a previous post. Mark (who has no intellectual depth or insight) sees this as a whoopee cushion level joke. His thinking is shallow af because that's all he's capable of and he wouldn't recognize a guiding principle and it's value if his life depended on it--okay, I'm running this into the ground today.

You might say in reply, as you gesture at here, that the job has too many technical qualifications for a person to meet for this quality to be all that important. I really don't believe that is the case, though. Or, more accurately, I think the pool of people capable of the job is so large that you can find people who are sufficiently qualified that it's appropriate to want this of them too. The broad thrust of Warren's late career has been to find ways to represent the interests of relatively powerless people in complex bureaucracies where rules are gamed against them, so it is easy to imagine why such a thing would be a priority in the type of personal Warren would be after.

Agree with all of the above. The candidate pool would be extensive. I think that if someone can address and deliver policy and services to the "least of these" they can deliver the goods to the overall general population.

by the way, I thought it was a bit of grandstanding on her part but she is also the enthusiastic candidate for change who has a plan for that!!!

I would love to see the trans student interview Betty Devos. Does anyone here really think she's about inclusion?

[_Jersey Girl]

I really like how you formatted your questions, because I can answer them since they're posed in a way that let's the reader know you want them answered. I wish more people would do that when engaging in long format Internet discussions.

I was trying to make it quick and dirty for you.

Okay. Will you entertain a bit more flummoxing? You mentioned empathy. In my view, Warren in stating that she would allow a 9 year old trans child to interview and basically "okay" the candidate of Warren's choice, she's actually vetting them for both empathy and bias.

That was pretty apparent to me. I think those are qualities necessary for any level of responsibility when to comes to managing people.

In other words, how do you serve what you can't understand or relate to? How do you determine needs and develop policy?

That's why I mentioned that kind of experience is relevant to the person being interviewed. It should be gained through prior job experience and a good track record.

Do you think that empathy and bias are traits important (either way) to staffing the Sec. of Education post? If not, why not?

See above.

I mean, we've got someone right in the White House who blatantly lacks empathy and exudes bias of various sorts. How's that working out for us do you think?

I'm fairly certain I've made my views on Trump clear.

- Doc

This right here:

That's why I mentioned that kind of experience is relevant to the person being interviewed. It should be gained through prior job experience and a good track record.

Cool. Do you think it's unreasonable to expect the candidate to demonstrate that in real time?