Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1080581 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Tea Drinker

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1124
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5220 on: January 07, 2014, 04:55:40 PM »
How about doctors who Google their patients ?  :o
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/when-doctors-google-their-patients-2/?src=recg

This doesn't overly bother me from a privacy point of view, because if it's on the internet... but it bothers me from a time wasting and accuracy point of view. I can't even find *myself* on Google because there are a LOT of Iris McRealnames out there and I lose interest on page 10.

Perhaps these doctors only treat prominent people, or perhaps their Google fu is amazing but I don't want my treatment to change because some other Iris was arrested on a drug charge.

It also feels like there's something missing in the story or the reasoning as described there--if the patient, regardless of age, tests positive for cocaine, that's more relevant than whether she was arrested for cocaine possession 30 years ago. Even if it's the right person, and even if the charges were valid, "arrested for possession in 1984" doesn't mean "is using in 2014," just as the lack of an arrest record wouldn't mean the drug test was a false positive.

Any advice that requires the use of a time machine may safely be ignored.

Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4442
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5221 on: January 07, 2014, 06:29:52 PM »
How about doctors who Google their patients ?  :o
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/when-doctors-google-their-patients-2/?src=recg

This doesn't overly bother me from a privacy point of view, because if it's on the internet... but it bothers me from a time wasting and accuracy point of view. I can't even find *myself* on Google because there are a LOT of Iris McRealnames out there and I lose interest on page 10.

Perhaps these doctors only treat prominent people, or perhaps their Google fu is amazing but I don't want my treatment to change because some other Iris was arrested on a drug charge.

It also feels like there's something missing in the story or the reasoning as described there--if the patient, regardless of age, tests positive for cocaine, that's more relevant than whether she was arrested for cocaine possession 30 years ago. Even if it's the right person, and even if the charges were valid, "arrested for possession in 1984" doesn't mean "is using in 2014," just as the lack of an arrest record wouldn't mean the drug test was a false positive.

Yes it's weird isn't it!   The Dr was obviously thinking somebody else had administered the cocaine, but once he saw she had been arrested years ago for it decides that no, it is just her because she's a druggie, so cheerfully gets on with it.   But actually, that isn't necessarily the case - it could *still* be an abuse case, perhaps by somebody who knew her history and therefore knew it would provide a good cover.    Using somebody's history doesn't necessarily tell them a lot about who they are now, or their lifestyle now.

The logic just isn't there for using this as a method of patient consultation.   
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


Mel the Redcap

  • Scheming Foreign Hussy!
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 779
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5222 on: January 07, 2014, 06:39:13 PM »
How about doctors who Google their patients ?  :o
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/when-doctors-google-their-patients-2/?src=recg

This doesn't overly bother me from a privacy point of view, because if it's on the internet... but it bothers me from a time wasting and accuracy point of view. I can't even find *myself* on Google because there are a LOT of Iris McRealnames out there and I lose interest on page 10.

Perhaps these doctors only treat prominent people, or perhaps their Google fu is amazing but I don't want my treatment to change because some other Iris was arrested on a drug charge.

It also feels like there's something missing in the story or the reasoning as described there--if the patient, regardless of age, tests positive for cocaine, that's more relevant than whether she was arrested for cocaine possession 30 years ago. Even if it's the right person, and even if the charges were valid, "arrested for possession in 1984" doesn't mean "is using in 2014," just as the lack of an arrest record wouldn't mean the drug test was a false positive.

Yes it's weird isn't it!   The Dr was obviously thinking somebody else had administered the cocaine, but once he saw she had been arrested years ago for it decides that no, it is just her because she's a druggie, so cheerfully gets on with it.   But actually, that isn't necessarily the case - it could *still* be an abuse case, perhaps by somebody who knew her history and therefore knew it would provide a good cover.    Using somebody's history doesn't necessarily tell them a lot about who they are now, or their lifestyle now.

The logic just isn't there for using this as a method of patient consultation.

*blinkblink* The article doesn't say that - it says that he felt like he'd invaded her privacy (though it was a nurse who'd Googled and drew it to his attention), went back to his examination, didn't mention it, and everything proceeded as normal.
"Set aphasia to stun!"

Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4442
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5223 on: January 07, 2014, 06:57:02 PM »
How about doctors who Google their patients ?  :o
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/when-doctors-google-their-patients-2/?src=recg

This doesn't overly bother me from a privacy point of view, because if it's on the internet... but it bothers me from a time wasting and accuracy point of view. I can't even find *myself* on Google because there are a LOT of Iris McRealnames out there and I lose interest on page 10.

Perhaps these doctors only treat prominent people, or perhaps their Google fu is amazing but I don't want my treatment to change because some other Iris was arrested on a drug charge.

It also feels like there's something missing in the story or the reasoning as described there--if the patient, regardless of age, tests positive for cocaine, that's more relevant than whether she was arrested for cocaine possession 30 years ago. Even if it's the right person, and even if the charges were valid, "arrested for possession in 1984" doesn't mean "is using in 2014," just as the lack of an arrest record wouldn't mean the drug test was a false positive.

Yes it's weird isn't it!   The Dr was obviously thinking somebody else had administered the cocaine, but once he saw she had been arrested years ago for it decides that no, it is just her because she's a druggie, so cheerfully gets on with it.   But actually, that isn't necessarily the case - it could *still* be an abuse case, perhaps by somebody who knew her history and therefore knew it would provide a good cover.    Using somebody's history doesn't necessarily tell them a lot about who they are now, or their lifestyle now.

The logic just isn't there for using this as a method of patient consultation.

*blinkblink* The article doesn't say that - it says that he felt like he'd invaded her privacy (though it was a nurse who'd Googled and drew it to his attention), went back to his examination, didn't mention it, and everything proceeded as normal.

That's exactly what I meant.   Prior to knowing that she had a history of drug use he believed it might be an abuse case e.g. somebody else had administered cocaine to her without her knowledge.   The fact he then dropped that line of thought after learning of her history implies that he now believed she had in fact taken it knowingly and just chosen not to disclose it, so proceeded as normal.     Hence, he was assuming because she was once a drug user she was still a drug user.    (Not necessarily an unfair assumption given she had tested positive for cocaine - I'm not saying he was *wrong* just that it seems silly to base your views solely on a person's history from years and years ago). 
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4442
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5224 on: January 07, 2014, 07:07:15 PM »
Here's my tip to job applicants:   for a relatively senior level role, the first impression you want to make on the hiring manager really isn't sending an email asking whether "our requirement for a clean drivers license mean no traffic violations or does it mean no drink driving charges?"        I know they just don't want to waste time applying if they're ineligible.   I know that she's probably a really lovely lady who is just worried a couple of parking tickets would be an issue, but when I read that all I hear is alarm bells.....  Ideally I don't want candidates with traffic violations or drink driving charges, so implying you have either isn't wise!

I recommend people in that situation apply, and mention it an interview if they are concerned they don't meet the requirements.      In most cases it just means you are legally allowed to drive, and not likely to lose your drivers license anytime soon (e.g. not got too many demerit points or about to be taken to court on driving charges etc).

But I will not be pursuing this candidate further - I'll pursue the people who actually submitted applications instead.     
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


PastryGoddess

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4005
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5225 on: January 07, 2014, 11:00:39 PM »
Here's my tip to job applicants:   for a relatively senior level role, the first impression you want to make on the hiring manager really isn't sending an email asking whether "our requirement for a clean drivers license mean no traffic violations or does it mean no drink driving charges?"        I know they just don't want to waste time applying if they're ineligible.   I know that she's probably a really lovely lady who is just worried a couple of parking tickets would be an issue, but when I read that all I hear is alarm bells.....  Ideally I don't want candidates with traffic violations or drink driving charges, so implying you have either isn't wise!

I recommend people in that situation apply, and mention it an interview if they are concerned they don't meet the requirements.      In most cases it just means you are legally allowed to drive, and not likely to lose your drivers license anytime soon (e.g. not got too many demerit points or about to be taken to court on driving charges etc).

But I will not be pursuing this candidate further - I'll pursue the people who actually submitted applications instead.     

*blink*

The person you ask that question is your lawyer...or a very good friend.  Not the people who will be hiring you
My Photography Gallery
http://www.ctartisticphotos.com/

TeamBhakta

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2289
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5226 on: January 08, 2014, 03:36:00 AM »
TV anchors initially suggesting people should throw boiling hot water to see it freeze midair. Which ended with people getting burned or slipping on ice

http://www.newser.com/story/180347/boiling-to-frozen-water-stunt-scalds-dozens.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 03:39:13 AM by TeamBhakta »

hermanne

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1576
  • Visualize whorled peas...
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5227 on: January 08, 2014, 09:42:05 AM »
TV anchors initially suggesting people should throw boiling hot water to see it freeze midair. Which ended with people getting burned or slipping on ice

http://www.newser.com/story/180347/boiling-to-frozen-water-stunt-scalds-dozens.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser

Try blowing bubbles. It's safer.

Supposedly the bubbles freeze and don't pop. I tried that this morning with the kids; I guess it wasn't cold enough because my bubbles did pop, and we had what looked like little bits of plastic wrap floating around. :)
Bad spellers of the world, UNTIE!




Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 27848
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5228 on: January 08, 2014, 11:26:28 AM »
Here's my tip to job applicants:   for a relatively senior level role, the first impression you want to make on the hiring manager really isn't sending an email asking whether "our requirement for a clean drivers license mean no traffic violations or does it mean no drink driving charges?"        I know they just don't want to waste time applying if they're ineligible.   I know that she's probably a really lovely lady who is just worried a couple of parking tickets would be an issue, but when I read that all I hear is alarm bells.....  Ideally I don't want candidates with traffic violations or drink driving charges, so implying you have either isn't wise!

I recommend people in that situation apply, and mention it an interview if they are concerned they don't meet the requirements.      In most cases it just means you are legally allowed to drive, and not likely to lose your drivers license anytime soon (e.g. not got too many demerit points or about to be taken to court on driving charges etc).

But I will not be pursuing this candidate further - I'll pursue the people who actually submitted applications instead.   

This seems rather unfair. Let's say she has one ticket for going 10 mph over the limit. You say you don't care if she has a ticket or two, and yet you're dropper her as a candidate because she asked for clarification as to what you meant by "clean" driving record. This puzzles me. If you don't care about tickets, why are you penalizing her for asking what you mean?

A lawyer may be able to tell the candidate what they think "clean" means, but it is not necessarily what the prospective employer means.
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5256
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5229 on: January 08, 2014, 11:47:37 AM »
My employer has been experiencing a higher turnover rate than the usual and is currently in the hiring process for two positions. An internal employee who has been attending college during her employment is applying for one of the positions as she now meets the education requirements.

One of the interview committee members won't interview her because her professionalism is lower than what is expected for this particular position.  :(

I have requested that the employee be interviewed just for the experience, not because she is competitive for the role.

In your opinion, what would be better? To be given the chance to interview even though the prior knowledge of the person and their communication skills and professionalism may keep them from getting the position or not to give them that chance.

blue2000

  • It is never too late to be what you might have been
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6682
  • Two kitties - No waiting. And no sleeping either.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5230 on: January 08, 2014, 12:01:57 PM »
Would you tell her that she isn't qualified (or isn't a good fit)? Because getting her hopes up for a job that she won't get seems rather mean.

If she knows that she isn't on the shortlist but she is allowed to try and impress them with her skills for future/alternate jobs, she may be fine with that.
You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7604
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5231 on: January 08, 2014, 12:08:32 PM »
Personally I think she should be told she is not really in consideration for the position.  Somehow, applying and interviewing for a position in a company where you are known and being rejected seems far worse and more hurtful than applying somewhere where no one knows you and being rejected.  In the first instance it just feels far more personal.

I agree with Blue2000.

Would you tell her that she isn't qualified (or isn't a good fit)? Because getting her hopes up for a job that she won't get seems rather mean.

If she knows that she isn't on the shortlist but she is allowed to try and impress them with her skills for future/alternate jobs, she may be fine with that.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 12:10:12 PM by gramma dishes »

Shalamar

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 909
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5232 on: January 08, 2014, 01:01:43 PM »
This sort of fits in this thread:  a lady posted on Kijiji yesterday with this gem:

"I need a job because I have two toddlers to support.  I've never had a job before.  I don't have a resume."

That was it.  Somehow, I don't think she'll be inundated with offers.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5256
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5233 on: January 08, 2014, 01:22:49 PM »
I appreciate the comments. I was hoping she would be interviewed to give her the chance to show that she has the skills needed. Also, since this is a different employee class than what position she has had, it would help her to know what they expect.

Outdoor Girl

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12864
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5234 on: January 08, 2014, 01:28:33 PM »
I appreciate the comments. I was hoping she would be interviewed to give her the chance to show that she has the skills needed. Also, since this is a different employee class than what position she has had, it would help her to know what they expect.

Are you her current supervisor?  I think it could be handled with something like, 'You now meet the educational requirements for X position but there are some things you'll need to work on in order to move into a position like that.'  And go through those specific things with her.  If the other manager will agree to interview her, you could ask her if she would like to go through the interview process for the experience, to improve her skills, in hopes that the next time a position comes open, she'll be ready for it.
I have CDO.  It is like OCD but with the letters in alphabetical order, as they should be.
Ontario