From: F Murtz on 24 Mar 2010 06:55
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
> JL<jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2:46?pm, "George W Frost"<georgewfr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If I was hiring a sysadmin it would not matter whether she turned up in a
>>> skirt or slacks or an evening dress or jeans and bike boots, with helmet of
>>> The job position would not depend on dress sense
>> So, would you hire a guy for a sysadmin role who turned up in a $3,000
>> dollar Armani suit without any further investigation ?
> I wouldn't, because someone dressed like that is going to be worried
> about lifting floor tiles and crawling underneath (which isn't in my
> current job description but doesn't mean I haven't had to do it) and
> because someone dressed like that is almost certainly not going to be
> a good cultural fit.
> Better to over than underdress for an interview but only to a point...
> Note I don't make the "Does someone who wears expensive suits have
> any technical smarts" argument because I know a very good sysadmin
> who wears bespoke tailoring. I think he does it to mess with
> people's minds as much as because he likes to look good...
> I have no idea if he turned up to an interview in such gear though!
OT. does a sysadmin know how to use smileys with sea monkey? cause I
don't and I would like to.
From: Zebee Johnstone on 24 Mar 2010 17:05
In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:55:26 +1100
F Murtz <haggisz(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> OT. does a sysadmin know how to use smileys with sea monkey? cause I
> don't and I would like to.
you know that saw about "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill
In the case of smileys the killing comes first.
- channelling Simon.
 sysadmin joke.
From: JL on 24 Mar 2010 21:13
On Mar 24, 8:11 pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...(a)imagine-it.com.au>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:13:06 -0700 (PDT), JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com>
> >On Mar 24, 7:37 am, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...(a)imagine-it.com.au>
> >> One day people will judge people one what they do, not what they wear.
> >> Yeah right.
> >What you wear is very informative about you as a person, and
> >deliberately being non conformist to a dress code (not wearing a suit
> >for an office job interview for example or wearing a suit to an
> >interview as a creative in the advertising industry) sends a clear
> >signal about your mental attitude and approach. Why would anyone hire
> >someone who loudly proclaims "I'm a subversive, I've no interested in
> >fitting in to your organisation's culture, if I don't like your rules,
> >I'll ignore them"
> >It is extraordinarily unusual for a role to be utterly stand alone,
> >generally you have to work as part of a team, and your approach to
> >team is clearly signalled by your willingness to be part of the
> >culture. An academic article published in the Harvard Business Review
> >concluded pretty forcefully that the person who is a "genius but an
> >arsehole who can't get along with others" (more nicely worded in the
> >article) is a net liability - it's genuinely not worth having them on
> >the team for the damage it does to the team.
> >It's extraordinarily juvenile to whine about "not judging people by
> >what they wear" when it is human nature to do exactly that - we gather
> >a huge amount of information visually, how you process that
> >information is the critical part.
> >Concluding things about people from what they wear has to be
> >approached carefully - some conclusions are supportable, some aren't.
> >It's reasonable to assume that someone turning up for an interview in
> >inappropriate clothing either a) doesn't understand what is
> >appropriate or b) doesn't care or c) isn't able to comply
> >Those three options lead to very different conclusions and actions.
> >FWIW I've hired 60 people in the last 12months alone (probably a 500
> >or more in the last decade and a bit) with a good track record of
> >success and physical appearance and presentation is only one of many
> >clues as to someone's capability, don't forget though that capability
> >has to be coupled with desire to work and desire to do a good job. And
> >appearance is a clue as to their attention to detail.
> >All of which is not to suggest Betty should have been discriminated
> >against, but the other poster who suggested that there would be an
> >assumption that that was how she would turn up everyday is utterly
> >correct- I have no idea whether that is or isn't a problem as I have
> >no idea what she wore and whether it's inappropriate
> I'm not disagreeing with that John, just that what defines how you
> turn up.
<shrug> cultural norms are cultural norms - wearing any clothing at
all is nonsensical for much of the year; yet we still do.
Elizabethan era ruffles around the neck look bloody stupid from the
perspective of the 21st C and I'm sure a suit and tie in Oz will look
just as silly from afar, but so what.
We are a herd animal as with all small physically weak omnivores, and
hence cultural conformity is the price you pay for the herd's
protection of numbers. To use the literally nonsensical syllogism "you
can't have your cake and eat it too".
Play the game by the rules, or don't play the game, either is fine.
However if you choose to try and play the game while breaking some of
the rules, don't whine when there's a penalty or you get the red card
and it's off the field of play.
> I always turn up at work neat and tidy. I think it is a
> little weird that (for men especially) there seems to be such a narrow
> defintion of what is acceptable,
As Clem rightly pointed out, most men hate shopping, so men's
wardrobes are commensurately simple - casual or formal, with 2 subsets
of each - REALLY casual (1A) (schlepping around the house or doing
manual labour) and general casual - jeans and a tshirt etc (1B) Then
there's formal(2a)and REALLY formal (penguin suit)2B. Blokes like it
that way 'cos it makes it easy.
One of those 4 options will always be the right choice - for an office
job involving customer contact it's usually 2a , for a technical job
it's usually 1B, for manual labour it's 1A. Everyone knows the rules
and it's easy to comply because you know the rules.
The male gender (within our society) collectively creates and enforces
> whereas females get a much broader
> range of what they can wear that acceptable.
That's because a) wimmin generally like shopping and b) as a species
our mating displays of finery are by the female not the male, ( male
mating displays tend to be of the performance variety hence all those
teenagers getting themselves killed proving how fearless they are...)
> Look at a formal penguin suit dinner. All the guys look identical, yet
> the ladies are assumed to be as varied as possible. I find that quite
You shouldn't, read some anthropology. In almost all species only one
gender will "peacock" the other will be more dowdy (think of the
peacock and peahen for example)
From: JL on 24 Mar 2010 21:29
On Mar 24, 6:37 pm, Andrew <amckNOSPAM3...(a)telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
> Meeting with several consultants and a posse of representatives of a
> Senior Government Agency. They're all in suits and pressed shirts and I
> show up in jeans and a grey m/c jacket with a black AGV under my arm.
> Lead representative of the Senior Government Agency is perfectly pressed
> and preened ($3500 suit, $800 tie, you know the type) and he's staring at
> me like I'm something that crawled out from under a rock.
> He's about my height, slim, with curly blond hair, so I decide to call
> him on it.
The implication as to why you find that relevant is slightly
disturbing "Not that there's anything wrong with that" TM
> Turns out he owns a Yamahondawakuzi CBXZ1000RRZXV that's
> practically new, and it hasn't been out of the garage in weeks because he
> hasn't had time; he's staring at me because he's *jealous*.
Yeah well that'd be me too ;-(
From: Zebee Johnstone on 24 Mar 2010 23:13
In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:11?pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...(a)imagine-it.com.au>
>> Look at a formal penguin suit dinner. All the guys look identical, yet
>> the ladies are assumed to be as varied as possible. I find that quite
> You shouldn't, read some anthropology. In almost all species only one
> gender will "peacock" the other will be more dowdy (think of the
> peacock and peahen for example)
So explain European male clothing between 1300 and 1800.
I point you specifically to 15thC Italy, early 16thC England and mid
Peacocks were not in it my old son!
I forget which of Elizabeth the First's Earls, Leicester? was known
for having a pearled doublet that was worth more than the house he
I dunno why the cultural imperative changed. There wa a swing back in
the 60s and 70s but not much of one.
At some point the signalling of wealth changed from bright and
flamboyant to hand made but sober. Perhaps because who you were
signalling to changed, you were signalling to far fewer people, and
the wealth was better off in banks because there were some.
On the other hand, my SCA experience is that if you give the male of
the species a chance to dress brightly and show off magnificent
clothes most of them will.