Just in case you missed it...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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?

With a kid in the room where they have to pander to him/her? Yeah, I think it's an utterly bizarre concept to incorporate within the hiring process for the position. The relevant level of empathy and experience would've led the candidate to being interviewed in the first place, and should be well established by their track record and people who know them. I mean, for “F”'s sake, we don't let kids vote and you expect them to have the situational awareness to vet a national-level appointment through the eyes of a child? Again, I can't begin to describe how utterly bizarre the notion is. I think the disconnect we're having is how we're viewing the scope of responsibility of the position, and how incongruent it is to have to clear a hurdle like the one you're suggesting is appropriate. I think we're simply going to have to disagree on this one.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

With a kid in the room where they have to pander to him/her?

Pander? What kind of pandering are you thinking about? Do you think children require pandering to and if so, why?


This below can wait for another time. Tomorrow or later if I'm still online.
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

Yeah, I think it's an utterly bizarre concept to incorporate within the hiring process for the position. The relevant level of empathy and experience would've led the candidate to being interviewed in the first place, and should be well established by their track record and people who know them. I mean, for “F”'s sake, we don't let kids vote and you expect them to have the situational awareness to vet a national-level appointment through the eyes of a child? Again, I can't begin to describe how utterly bizarre the notion is. I think the disconnect we're having is how we're viewing the scope of responsibility of the position, and how incongruent it is to have to clear a hurdle like the one you're suggesting is appropriate. I think we're simply going to have to disagree on this one.

- Doc

[_Markk]

When I've hired people for positions, as one of my final steps I usually have a intellectually disabled person interview them and take seriously their input to the point that the final decision is significantly influenced by them. Their not approving is a near-certain deal-breaker. Of course those candidates are pre-vetted by our recruiter and me, but there are important reasons why that final step happens. It occurs to me that DocCam would be guffawing at the fact that I let "retards" make employment decisions.

Hey EA,

Do you let a nine year old make a choice on who to hire?

I often interview new construction supervisors after they are interviewed by our CFO...he does not know a lot about actual building, so I check for building experience...as you might do.

My point is, and has always been having a child decide a cabinet position..and maybe even more telling, folks cheering this.

Was she pandering...absolutely, they all do, it is what they do, and the best panderer most often wins...but come on, this is just over the top, and deserves a healthy heckle.

Doc's point is valid in that it was what she was pandering...she pulled it out of her arse, and in a few days it won't be much remembered.

[_EAllusion]

Hey EAllusion,

Do you let a nine year old make a choice on who to hire?

I let people who have intellectual functioning that in some ways is inferior to an average 9 year old interview and weigh in on hiring decisions. I sit in on those interviews and if they do not think the candidate is above the board, I take that quite seriously. I think you might underestimate what they are capable of or misunderstand what the interview is trying to establish.

My point is, and has always been having a child decide a cabinet position..and maybe even more telling, folks cheering this.

That's not what is being proposed, and you are being thick-headed after it's been explained to you. Maybe instead you should question why you're reading the Daily Caller when it misleads you and makes you beclown yourself like this.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think I'm revealing anything by being a little more specific. I have seen those interviews go south. The people who do the interviews have some understanding of disability rights/pride and can apprehend their own interests. I ask them what they would like to ask in an interview and we collaborate to put a list of questions together. The goal of the interview is to get the candidate to express an understanding of and ideas about how they promote choice, inclusion, etc. for a vulnerable group of people they are interviewing to have a lot of influence over. This is both meant to be a test of that and a means to express to them what the job actually entails. It's also meant to promote autonomy and inclusion for the person doing the interviewing, because of course they should have a say in who gets these kind of jobs. It affects them the most. For the interview, I'm mostly silent aside from setting up introductions and friendly banter. Occasionally I have to step in to clarify or get things on track.

Every now and then, you do get a person who tries hard to pander, but has such a tin ear for it that you can tell they don't understand what we'd even want to hear. It's red-flag city in those circumstances. I'm not 100%, but I cannot think of a single instance of that happening where the intellectually disabled interviewer did not pick up on this and talk with me about it post-interview as a reason they are uncomfortable with that person.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Pander? What kind of pandering are you thinking about? Do you think children require pandering to and if so, why?

Are we talking about children in general, or are we still talking about this theoretical 9-year-old who holds a national-level hire in their sole possession? Because you just split off from the point we’re discussing with your third question above.

- Doc

[_Chap]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-my-secretary-of-education-will-have-to-be-vetted-by-a-trans-child

Having a nine year old choose the secretary of education...this might just be the reason that the left wants witnesses, to tie up Warren and Bernie from campaigning.

The original exchange was:

So, when I’m president, [DeVos will] be gone. (applause) And here’s my plan, Jacob: I’m gonna find just the right Secretary of Education, but here’s what I plan to do. I want to make sure that the person that I think is the right Secretary of Education meets you and hears your story and then I want you to tell me if you think that’s the right person and then we’ll make the deal.

It's quite carefully phrased (surprise! Warren is not an idiot, and is an experienced politician). It doesn't say that her interlocutor's opinion on whether Warren's pick is "the right person"will be decisive. It just says that 'the deal' will be made after Warren has heard the interlocutor's opinion. As we know all too well, presidents often listen to advice and take no notice of it at all. I doubt whether Warren would be any different.

[_canpakes]

My point is, and has always been having a child decide a cabinet position..and maybe even more telling, folks cheering this.

That's not what is being proposed, and you are being thick-headed after it's been explained to you. Maybe instead you should question why you're reading the Daily Caller when it misleads you and makes you beclown yourself like this.

I'm still waiting for Markk to explain why allowing a 9-year-old child make the final pick from a pool of equally qualified and vetted candidates is any worse than any other method. I'm not expecting that he'll address that because once he adopts a position, he seeks only to go all in on it regardless of competent arguments or facts that otherwise show his position to be faulty.

[_Jersey Girl]

Pander? What kind of pandering are you thinking about? Do you think children require pandering to and if so, why?

Are we talking about children in general, or are we still talking about this theoretical 9-year-old who holds a national-level hire in their sole possession? Because you just split off from the point we’re discussing with your third question above.

- Doc

I'm talking about the real 9 year old trans student.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Jersey Girl,

Look. I don’t know how to explain to someone like yourself who believes giving vetting authority for a national-level appointment to a 9-year-old doesn’t makes sense beyond what I’ve done. Perhaps the adult will just ask the child what they want implemented in the country, and agree to it while telling the child something like, “Good job. Thank you for being so brave.” The kangaroo interview is over, Warren gets a nice photo op, and people kvetch online. If you feel comfortable giving veto authority to a child who has no concept of the job and all it entails, then that’s what you are. I think it’s bad policy, bad optics, and makes the Left look insane.*shrugs*

- Doc