text:
"...situational influences often appear to do their work with little regard to the character or personality of the person in the situation... social psychologists have repeatedly found that both disappointing omissions and appalling actions are readily induced through seemingly minor situational manipulations."
In which issues concerning the profession of philosophy are
bitched griped about
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Situational influences during job interviews
64 comments:
Sounds like you're making some unfortunate assumptions about sex workers.
- October 11, 2011 at 4:51 PM
- Neil said...
Uhlmann & Cohen (2005) asked subjects to rate the suitability of two candidates for police chief, one male and one female. One candidate was presented as 'streetwise' but lacking in formal education while the other one had the opposite profile. Uhlmann and Cohen varied the sex of the candidates across conditions, so that some subjects got a male streetwise candidate and a female well-educated candidate while other subjects got the reverse. In both conditions, subjects considered the male candidate significantly better qualified than the female, explaining their choice by the importance of the qualification that the male candidate possessed.
Moral of the tale: you may be influenced by facts - like dress - you take to be irrelevant, without knowing it; instead, the fact may cause you to confabulate some plausible looking justification for the conclusion you were unconsciously motivated to reach. If you think you are not susceptible to these influences, you are wrong.
- October 11, 2011 at 5:28 PM
I'll admit, when I saw the words "police chief", I pictured some stodgy old dude.
Might this reaction explain far more of that study's results than any negative assessment of women versus men in such roles? Seems like more of an uncritical 'round peg, round hole' reaction than anything requiring 'confabulated justifications'.
On the other hand, maybe they're right: people might be more willing to overlook coin slots on men than on women. (I'm writing up a grant proposal as we speak.)
- October 11, 2011 at 7:16 PM
Neil--it sounds like you're pointing out that we might have a bias that tracks dress as a cue for its expression. Surely this is true. And surely we all ought to be aware of that sort of thing. But I took it that Zombie was talking about a fully-conscious bias concerning a candidate's dress, suggesting that it might be the function of a set of conventions that are basically relative to one's time and culture, and which at any rate all members of a community ought to be aware of. I take it talk of bias is just out of place here.
word verifcation: stapwarn: any clothing belonging to the lead singer of Creed.
- October 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM
- Neil said...
Anonymous 7:35. I'm certainly not defending conscious biases. I am claiming that it would be naive to think that we can overcome bias, such that it will not affect our behavior. It might show up in consciousness not as bias toward dress but in some other, perfectly plausible, guise. You can only detect the workings of these biases by doing controlled studies and looking at performance across groups.
Anonymous 7: 16. The hypothesis you suggest still requires confabulation. It doesn't matter what is driving the effect, so long as what is driving the effect doesn't show up in the justifications subjects give themselves. Of course this is just one study among many, in any case.
- October 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM
I wonder if this take is more charitable than is really justified, though. Consider two male candidates: One is wearing clothes that fit well, and are of a sort where if you saw the person teaching, or conducting an interview, you would think he has taste and class, but he isn't wearing a suit. The second candidate is wearing a cheap, ill-fitting, dark blue suit.
I take it from the comments in past messages that the second candidate is dressed appropriately, and in fact it would be inappropriate to hold the cheapness and ill-fittedness of his suit against him. But it also seems that however well-dressed the first candidate is, he might not be dressed appropriately. The reason being that what is being "measured" is not the candidate's ability to pick up on context-specific conventions, but their more general tendency to be cowed by broad social conventions, making them safe to send to the dean, pliable in faculty meetings, and so forth.
Of course, someone really good at picking up on context-specific conventions will realize this and wear the suit, and who knows what they'll do in a meeting ...
- October 11, 2011 at 9:07 PM
JFP is up.
- October 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM
I'm still waiting for the day someone over-dresses for an interview. I just might hire the first person who showed up in a tuxedo or a wedding dress.
- October 11, 2011 at 9:40 PM
Neil--this is anonymous 7:35.
My point was just that I don't see the relevance of what you're saying to the conversation at hand. Of course there are unjust biases (and let the notion of injustice do whatever normative work is needed). The point is, not all biases are grounded on injustices. So, the thought runs, not all biases are unjust to hold. You can point to some that are--no doubt there are others. But I don't see why that has any but a tangential bearing to the view you're responding to.
- October 11, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Unless I've entirely misread the post, and correct me if I have: the idea that unconscious biases, because they are unconscious are not racist, sexist or otherwise is preposterous. The idea that a person is sexist, racist or otherwise only if it enters into their conscious justifications is also preposterous. Now that we know about these biases, and that presumably, they are not plausibly innate fixed facts about the way we're wired, it is a moral requirement for us to do whatever it takes to influence them in the opposite direction whether that takes a frying pan to the head or whatever.
Now about the job market: I will, despite these facts, be pragmatic of course. I don't expect these biases to be under control this season.
- October 12, 2011 at 5:09 AM
ps: I would also like to hear some examples of just biases besides the bias towards wanting to believe the truth and to being governed by certain epistemic standards for being good believers.
- October 12, 2011 at 5:11 AM
Well, the comment I thought I saw here seems to have disappeared? Did I dream this? Zero?
- October 12, 2011 at 5:37 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
iWell, the comment I thought I saw here seems to have disappeared? Did I dream this? Zero?
I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't delete anything. If I had, it would say "this comment has been deleted by an administrator."
- October 12, 2011 at 5:41 AM
Ah, I see, Neil said something like this, but I am still unsure how it was meant.
Neil, can you clarify what you meant by saying it doesn't matter what's driving the biases so long as they don't show up in our conscious justifications?
- October 12, 2011 at 5:41 AM
Found it!
- October 12, 2011 at 5:42 AM
re: Anon 9:07
The moral of the story is: for the love of all that's holy, take your suit to a decent tailor before you interview. It costs (way!) less than buying a more expensive suit, and results in you looking better than non-suit-person (and most suit-wearers) across the board.
Implicitly or occurrently, clothes matter. We all, by now, should be aware of this. Flouting that norm at some cost to yourself demonstrates either stubbornness or naivete, both of which are at least weak indicators of "pain in the ass colleague." In a buyer's market, why wouldn't people select against weak indicators of pain-in-the-asshood?
wv: quitho
I think we can all see where that's going in the context of this post.
- October 12, 2011 at 5:47 AM
To Anonymous 5:09
I don't see what's so preposterous about the thought that conscious bias is both possible and, in some cases, not an injustice. With the case of clothing in particular, it is a fact about human beings, because of the natural and social environments in which we evolved and were raised, that certain manners of dress tend to elicit in us certain judgments of the people adopting that dress. The look of a person, their hygiene, the care of their clothes, and the style of their clothes are cues for our interpreting a person's disposition. In a society as liberal as ours, I hardly see that the degree to which folks are expected to dress 'appropriately' is a bias that is the fault of the person holding it (I take it this echoes a point Zombie made above). Instead, to flout expectations of dress seems to be a character flaw that indicates either an immature regard for oneself as a member of a group, or an ignorance of some basic points of view in that group. Sometimes this can seem to border on a disregard and ignorance for what it is to be a human being (I'm half joking--you can decide which half).
An interaction with an unkempt person in a disheveled outfit reeking of alcohol will be valenced by all sorts of judgments. So will someone who seems to be dressed so as to put on display their physical appearance. We have all sorts of expectations concerning the significance of a style of dress. These expectations often aim to track important cues as to a person's character; sometimes, they are successful at that tracking. It is because we live in such a liberal society that we can, more or less, count on a person's dress and the setting they are in to tell us something about who they are. And I'm not talking about people wearing uniforms in a Home Depot--it's really pretty easy, if you have the social skills and familiarity with how clothing cues correlate to character today, to strike up a conversation with someone and engage with them simply by thinking about what sort of person they must be like given how they are dressed.
That these conscious biases should be, simply as such, unjust strikes me as nonsense. And to impugn deeper hidden bias seems to be to change the conversation. I'm all for taking up that question if we have a particular case at hand. But the idea that studies uncovering unconscious bias over clothing affects the point being made seems to miss the point entirely.
Simple professional attire will communicate, if only slightly, that the candidate takes this thing seriously. Of course, such judgments may later prove wrong. The candidate may yet wind up an asshat. And no one should take clothing too seriously if they're able to really get to know a person. But as Zombie said, often you've only got 1/2 an hour to make an impression in person, and clothing can affect that pretty greatly. I think that's for good reason.
- October 12, 2011 at 7:34 AM
Isn't a bias something we believe that doesn't follow rules of epistemic rationality or on evidence? Isn't that what it is to have a bias? I am confused as to how such a thing could be justified. Please explain.
- October 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Who says biases are "justified," YFNA?
- October 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM
Uh. Someone is arguing on here that there can be just biases, which I assume involves some kind of rational justification? Maybe I am misunderstanding the point here.
- October 12, 2011 at 10:30 AM
The issue, as laid out in Zombie's post, is whether judging a candidate based on dress was a character flaw of the one making the judgment. I argued that in some cases such judgment is a matter of the norms of the community, and the person who errs is not the one making the judgment, but the one who flouts the norm. (I take myself to be drawing out a line of thought I see in Zombie's original post, but maybe I'm wrong.)
Biases such as these need not be unjust. Maybe you don't like the term 'bias.' The point is that thinking of judgments based on dress as a character flaw of the one making the judgment is not always correct. For whatever you call them, these rules for judging people clue us in to the sort of person we are dealing with. They are features of our evolved and educated position in the world, and we use them to track the character of the people we interact with. Come in to a job interview unkempt and reeking of alcohol, or looking like you're out for a night on the town, and you're going to communicate features of your disposition that are reliably tracked by such dress.
Sure, you'd like us to hope that in this case they aren't marking what they generally do, but when you're dealing with someone for the space of maybe half an hour, little cues like dress and demeanor can carry a lot of information. And rightly so. It's part of how we get along in the world, and it's essential for how we get along with one another.
- October 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Someone is arguing on here that there can be just biases, which I assume involves some kind of rational justification?
I don't see it. I took Zombie's point to be that the biases exist and that being affected by them doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a human being. I don't see anyone arguing that these biases are rationally justified. I do see Zombie pointing out that, in a certain environment, behaving as though these biases do not exist conveys information to people with whom you interact. And that this implies that job applicants are well-advised not to do this, even if it is in fact true that the biases should not exist.
That is, search committees are going to look at you and make judgments about you, your qualifications, and your suitability for the job based on what you are wearing and how you present yourself. And the fact that they shouldn't do this has no bearing on whether they will. And that even a highly conscientious person who consciously disavows these inferences and takes care to avoid making them is going to be at least moderately unsuccessful. And so a wise applicant takes care to present herself in a way that acknowledges and reflects this reality.
And I think Zombie's example about the scientist at her school demonstrates that she understands that these inferences are unreliable. But if the scientist is going to a job interview, she ought to take notice of the fact that people are going to make unwarranted inferences about her based on the way she's dressed. They won't be able to help it. And if she knows that and doesn't do anything about it, then her interviewing is going to have room for improvement.
- October 12, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Yeah. I know ZERO. I was referring to a comment in which someone asserted that some biases might, in fact, be just. I also earlier said that I myself would be acting pragmatically.
However, your suggestion that we cannot do anything consciously to alter our biases is questionable. As well as the idea that having biases is merely human and implying by this that therefore we need not do anything about them, or perhaps that we can't, is likewise specious.
- October 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM
- Kenny said...
The original post talked about the right to 'express oneself' by how one dresses. If no one read anything into how you dressed, then the way you dressed wouldn't 'express' anything. As a result, I don't think the problem is with people making some judgments based on dress. Where the problem comes in, I think, is when someone makes an UNJUSTIFIED inference from how a candidate is dressed to an IRRELEVANT (alleged) fact about the candidate and then bases a hiring decision on that. Of course, doing just one or the other is bad enough, but there are common examples where people (usually unconsciously) do both together. For instance:
1) The (female) candidate is wearing no makeup
2) The candidate is a lesbian
3) The candidate would be a poor choice for the job
1) The candidate is shabbily dressed
2) The candidate is poor/lower class
3) The candidate would be a poor choice for the job
In each example, the first inference relies on objectionable stereotyping, and the second inference on objectionable prejudices. So I take it these are the uncontroversially bad cases of judging on the basis of dress.
But consider:
1) The candidate put no effort whatsoever into his/her appearance for our interview
2) The candidate does not care how he/she appears to us
3) The candidate is not excited about this job possibility, and would therefore not be a good choice
This doesn't seem objectionable to me in the same way as the first two examples. In fact, some people (including a lot of academics) intentionally dress in ways that suggest that they do not care about their appearance, and this is part of their 'self-expression,' but it's probably not what you should 'express' to a hiring committee.
- October 12, 2011 at 12:40 PM
- Neil said...
11.35/7.42. The original post mentioned the claim that others think it is shallow to be influenced by clothing. My claim was that in addition to conscious biases, shallow or not, there are unconscious biases which are extremely difficult to detect in oneself, let alone control. They are hard to detect because they cause us to have entirely plausible seemingly relevant thoughts, complete with justifications. We should try to eliminate these biases in ourselves, but since that is a longterm project (almost certainly involving large social change), jobseekers might reasonably attempt to avoid triggering some of them (especially trivial ones like dress).
- October 12, 2011 at 1:15 PM
- Mr. Zero said...
I was referring to a comment in which someone asserted that some biases might, in fact, be just.
Ok. Sorry if I misunderstood. But I quickly reviewed the comments preceding your post @ 9:27 and didn't see anyone making that claim, and so in a post @ 10:04 I asked you who made that claim. In response, you (I assume that's you @ 10:30) didn't pull a quote or identify any comment in particular. You just said "someone on here." I'm still not really sure whom you are addressing.
However, your suggestion that we cannot do anything consciously to alter our biases is questionable.
My claim wasn't anywhere near that strong. My claim was, "...even a highly conscientious person who consciously disavows these inferences and takes care to avoid making them is going to be at least moderately unsuccessful."
Although this is a relatively new area, the research I'm familiar with indicates somewhat of a consensus that there are these latent cognitive biases that affect everyone, that they are not available to introspection, that it is not possible to consciously compensate for them once one has been made aware of them, and that they are basically stable over time. That doesn't mean that we cannot do anything consciously to alter our biases. It does suggest, though, that it might not be a good idea for you, the interviewer, to regard yourself as having successfully avoided making any bias-related inferences. And it also suggests that it would not be a good idea for you, the applicant, to regard your interviewers as being capable of successfully avoiding these inferences.
And so, finally, if you, the applicant, know that your interviewers are likely to unconsciously make unwarranted inferences about your qualifications based on what you're wearing, and your interviewers know that you know that, then it would be really unwise to go ahead and wear the clothes that are likely to produce unfavorable inferences.
And that's true even if the inferences are unwarranted, and even if everyone knows that they're unwarranted. Because (a) the interviewers might still make them even if they themselves regard them as unwarranted; and (b) the interviewers might well take your failure to guard against such common (however unwarranted) inferences to warrant certain inferences about your social skills and interest level.
But again, I'm not defending the claim that unwarranted inferences caused by latent biases are "just." I'm still not sure that anyone made this claim here. I simply mean to defend what I took to be Zombie's claim, that in this admittedly imperfect environment, it does in fact make sense for search committees to expect applicants to present themselves a certain way in job interviews, and to hold it against applicants when they don't. And if you, YFNA, don't disagree with this point, then I guess we agree on this point.
As well as the idea that having biases is merely human and implying by this that therefore we need not do anything about them, or perhaps that we can't, is likewise specious.
I don't see where I implied that we need not do anything about them. I did say that having biases is human, but the research suggests that this is true, that there are various biases that affect us all. And I did say that being vulnerable to certain biases does not make one a bad person, but that claim seems to me to be true on the assumption that not all people are bad people. I did not claim that we should merely regard ourselves as helpless against them. I was trying to recommend a realistic attitude about the likelihood of success, both in ourselves and in those with whom we interact. I was trying to recommend both caution and humility.
- October 12, 2011 at 1:17 PM
"So, the thought runs, not all biases are unjust to hold."
"That these conscious biases should be, simply as such, unjust strikes me as nonsense."
- October 12, 2011 at 2:22 PM
- Mr. Zero said...
Hi YFNA,
Thanks for the quotes. However, I was hoping you'd point to someone who thinks that e.g. a racist latent bias is not racist because it is latent, as you say you are disputing @ 5:09; or that these biases are justified somehow (rationally?), as you suggest somebody has done @9:27; or that the biases might be just--as in instances of justice, and as opposed to "not unjust" or "not an injustice," which are not equivalent to and weaker than the affirmative claim about justice--as you say you are referring to @ 12:00.
The person from your first quote is just saying that in situations in which the content of the bias is morally neutral, there is no reason to think that the bias itself is morally pernicious (perhaps they are epistemically pernicious or something); and the second quote is just saying that expecting job applicants to dress up for their job interviews is not an injustice. Maybe these claims are wrong. I don't have strong views here. But I don't see how they're saying the things you've been complaining about all day.
- October 12, 2011 at 5:08 PM
I must admit I have not noticed any correlation between smart dress (or tasteful makeup) and philosophical ability or sociability. In the absence of this correlation surely one should strive to ignore smart dress and makeup in making hiring decisions.
Perhaps we could get David Chalmers to comment on this...
- October 12, 2011 at 5:32 PM
ps on a lighter note, when I read this sort of discussion I always think of Germane Greer describing another woman as wearing 'fuck-me shoes'. Until hearing that, I didn't have the concept of 'fuck-me shoes', now I do - and I can identify them...
For context see eg http://www.nigelberman.co.uk/feature1_27.htm
- October 12, 2011 at 5:35 PM
- Mr. Zero said...
The thing about David Chalmers is that he is David Chalmers and because of the quality and influence of his work, he will never have to interview for another job again for the rest of his life. He is also extremely charming and likable. If your work is that widely regarded as being that good, and if you are that charming, then I think you have every reason to expect a favorable outcome no matter how you dress for your job interviews. If not, then probably not. You have to play the game along with the rest of us mortals.
To be clear, I am not convinced that there should be job interviews at all. But given that there are job interviews, applicants ought to ensure that their behavior reflects this fact. If there are certain customs involved with these interviews, or if the interviews and interviewers have various characteristics, applicants are well-advised to allow their behavior to reflect these facts, too.
And I guess I think that the requirement that we dress up for these interviews to be maybe the least onerous thing about them. I generally find the facts that they are typically very far from where my mother lives and are held at a time when I would like to be at her house much more problematic. I wonder if the readers of the Wedding Smoker, Funeral Smoker, and Opera Smoker blogs complain about having to dress up occasionally as much as the people at the Philosophy Smoker do.
And finally, I can't help but feel a little bad for Chalmers when people make this point every year. He really is a nice, smart, generous guy, and I feel a twinge when I see him constantly mentioned as a paradigm example of a smart person who is such a terrible dresser that he proves this point about how there's no connection between the quality of your work and how you present yourself.
- October 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM
- Neil said...
Here in Australia, Dave is not regarded as especially badly dressed (for a philosopher).
- October 12, 2011 at 6:26 PM
I'm the fellow who's been defending the contention that some so-called biases are not the faults of those who have them, but are instead character-tracking judgments that we use to interpret and understand the people we interact with, shaped by contingent and facts and the values of a society. Rather than seeing these things as flaws in the persons who make them, I've been suggesting that at least in some cases those who contravene a society's norms of dress are by that act telegraphing traits of character that are reliably indicated by things like a person's dress. Neil and YFNA, so far as I can tell, are both talking about something else entirely. For they write of the biases at interest to them that (Neil):
"They are hard to detect because they cause us to have entirely plausible seemingly relevant thoughts, complete with justifications. We should try to eliminate these biases in ourselves…"
(and YFNA):
"Now that we know about these biases, and that presumably, they are not plausibly innate fixed facts about the way we're wired, it is a moral requirement for us to do whatever it takes to influence them in the opposite direction whether that takes a frying pan to the head or whatever."
But think of how crazy it would be to eliminate our bias against disheveled alcoholics, or women wearing their fuck-me shoes. People adopt personas as a way of expressing themselves, and being able to track those expressions, navigating among them in the sea of society, is a condition on our being able to swim in that sea at all. And it would be CRAZY to think that we were under some kind of moral obligation to "do whatever it takes to influence them in the opposite direction." What would that even mean? When I'm talking with the truck-stop owner who sold my father a surplus military dumptruck, I'm to engage with him as if he's…the prince of England? A woman wearing her fuck-me shoes?
As I see it, in a liberal society the lenses with which we shape our social impressions of one another, and which shape some of the judgments we make of them, are one's the determination of which are largely under the control of those we are judging. If that were not the case, we simply could not be a community together. The idea that the 'bias' in this sort of pre-judgment or expectation of character is always and everywhere to be eliminated, or transmuted into an opposite valence, looks simply unintelligible to me. And David Chalmers proves my point. Here's a guy who's genuinely sociable, a good speaker, charming, understated, and a wit. In short, a fun guy to be around. And the way he dresses communicates that perfectly.
- October 12, 2011 at 8:04 PM
- zombie said...
"I took Zombie's point to be that the biases exist and that being affected by them doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a human being. I don't see anyone arguing that these biases are rationally justified. I do see Zombie pointing out that, in a certain environment, behaving as though these biases do not exist conveys information to people with whom you interact. And that this implies that job applicants are well-advised not to do this, even if it is in fact true that the biases should not exist."
Yep, Zero's got it.
Whether you agree with clothing conventions or not, they exist, and they influence how people perceive you. If you want to play the job market game, it's prudent to play by the rules. I'll bet even David Chalmers has had to dress up from time to time.
FWIW, I don't think Chalmers looks bad. I've seen worse (on lesser philosophers).
- October 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM
Alright. I think all of us are mis-communicating here, since whenever someone says something about me, they get it wrong and vice versa.
I was under the impression that bias, by its very nature, is an unjustified kind of belief that guides behavior consciously or unconsciously.
The previous person is talking about our tendency to make correct judgments based on evidence. I no longer understand what a bias is, in that case. It seems to me that what you mean by "bias" I understand as a mere tendency. Of course, those can surely be justified. A tendency to believe the evidence would be a just "bias" then, I guess.
Since this conversation no longer makes any sense to me, I will try to refrain from making any more comments on topic.
However, I do still think that if we have any so-called biases at all about what to believe they should only be those biases that tend to lead to correct beliefs! But those are not really biases as far as I am concerned.
- October 13, 2011 at 3:38 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Alright. I think all of us are mis-communicating here, since whenever someone says something about me, they get it wrong and vice versa.
For example? (That is, I see where you're getting people wrong. Where are people getting you wrong?)
I was under the impression that bias, by its very nature, is an unjustified kind of belief that guides behavior consciously or unconsciously.
I thought a bias was an unconscious tendency to form an unjustified belief.
The previous person is talking about our tendency to make correct judgments based on evidence.
Which person? What does the person say, exactly? This is part of the problem, I think. You frequently address people without saying who it is or precisely what they said, and then paraphrase them inaccurately.
I no longer understand what a bias is, in that case. It seems to me that what you mean by "bias" I understand as a mere tendency. Of course, those can surely be justified.
I bias, as I said, is a tendency to form beliefs on insufficient or unreliable evidence. If it was a one-time thing, it wouldn't be a bias. However, I don't see why you think the mere fact that something is a tendency means that the resulting beliefs can "surely" be justified. Surely a pattern of unjustified beliefs is no more justified than a single unjustified belief.
A tendency to believe the evidence would be a just "bias" then, I guess.
Not sure where you're getting this.
However, I do still think that if we have any so-called biases at all about what to believe they should only be those biases that tend to lead to correct beliefs!
In a perfect world, there would be no biases. We don't have a perfect world. In an only moderately imperfect world, we could be aware of or control which biases were in effect at which times. We don't have a moderately imperfect world. What we have is a highly imperfect world in which a large quantity of biases are operating on us, we cannot control them, and they are not available to introspection. They are a fact of life, and you can't just ignore them or shut them off.
Zombie's point, which it seems to me you have failed to fully comprehend, is that the interview situation is one where the interviewers are going to judge you & your qualification for the job based in part on your clothes. Everyone knows this. Maybe not everyone knows that it's because of a latent cognitive bias, but everyone knows it will happen. You are therefore expected to dress up for your interviews, because if you don't your interviewers will think you're unqualified or otherwise unsuitable for the job.
And so, in this environment, there would have to be something wrong with you if you don't dress up for your interviews. No one who had an even rudimentary understanding of people and how to deal with them would consider not dressing up for an APA interview. And so, apart from any biases, failing to dress up for your interviews conveys genuine information to the interviewers. It doesn't speak to your ability to teach philosophy or conduct philosophical research; it speaks to your ability to understand what situation you're in and behave appropriately. As I understand it, this was Zombie's point.
- October 13, 2011 at 8:25 AM
I said in a previous post:
Now about the job market: I will, despite these facts, be pragmatic of course. I don't expect these biases to be under control this season. (just do a search on "pragmatic." It will pop right up.)
Jesus. Yes, you have repeatedly gotten me wrong. I *was* talking about ideals! I understand the pragmatic issues. Please, before you quote me and give me as ass-ripping, read my posts.
- October 13, 2011 at 8:42 AM
I also recognize that some of these judgments we make about people's appearances may be justified, but I thought the more interesting question was about real biases (which I took to be those tendencies to make judgments that are not justified). I doubt that *any* of the smokers had wondered about going to the interview stinking of alcohol or wearing dirty clothes there, or dressing as one might if one were a street prostitute. I thought the question here was more subtle. For instance, if I wear red lipstick will that affect how someone views me or if I am an attractive female should I play that up or down or neither? Etc.
- October 13, 2011 at 9:11 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Now about the job market: I will, despite these facts, be pragmatic of course.
I know you said you'd be pragmatic. When did I accuse you of refusing to dress up for your interviews? I thought our disagreement concerned whether such a (hypothetical) refusal would communicate actual useful information to a search committee. I say, it would.
I don't expect these biases to be under control this season.
Until interviews are conducted by robots equipped with sensors that detect the raw abilities to teach philosophy at the college level and conduct philosophical research, don't expect the biases to be under control at all.
Jesus. Yes, you have repeatedly gotten me wrong. I *was* talking about ideals! I understand the pragmatic issues. Please, before you quote me and give me as ass-ripping, read my posts.
I suspect that what has happened is, you said one thing that I thought was basically correct and which I didn't dispute, and then a bunch of things that I thought were incorrect or misguided and which I did dispute, and then you think I must be misreading you because I focused on the things I didn't agree with.
But look. You did say that somebody here believes that racist unconscious biases are not racist because they're unconscious; and that someone here believes that cognitive biases themselves can be justified (yield justified beliefs?); and that someone here believes that reliance on such biases in themselves would be an instance of justice (rather than merely possibly not unfair). Nobody said that stuff. The closest anyone came was this last one, but your interpretation is correct only if [p is not an instance of injustice] entails [p is an instance of justice], which is not obviously true and in fact seems clearly false, since p could be neutral with respect to justice.
And even your insistence that you will be pragmatic and dress up this year since the biases will still be around indicates a couple of misunderstandings. One, as I've already mentioned, the biases will always be around. Human beings characteristically are influenced by irrelevant and reliably unreliable information, and we characteristically cannot tell when it is happening. We can't get our biases under control. That's not how it works.
Two, you've repeatedly failed to understand Zombie's point here, or even to recognize that it exists. Her point is that dressing up for interviews is not just a matter of pragmatically coping with irrational interviewers. Whether there is any good reason for it deep down, search committees expect us to dress up. Obviously their cognitive biases will mislead them into thinking we're stupid and unqualified if we dress down, sure. And that's an unreliable inference caused by a bug in the human mind, sure.
But that's not the end of the story. The rest of the story is, you know that, they know you know that, and you know they expect you to dress up, and we all know that dressing up is highly customary. If you dress down, the search committee will take it as a sign that you aren't really interested in the job, because if you wanted the job you would have bothered to present yourself in the manner customary of people who want a job. Or else they'll take it as a sign that you are some kind of socially retarded weirdo who can't understand that normal human beings dress up for their job interviews.
And these inferences are not caused by a bug in the human mind. These inferences are caused by the fact that normal, intelligent human beings who want other human beings to hire them can be expected to behave in certain ways, so when a human being doesn't behave in those ways, there is a modus tollens in there somewhere.
And so dressing up for your interviews is no more a mere matter of pragmatics than polishing your writing sample. Grammatical mistakes and misspelled words are, of course, compatible with philosophical excellence. They don't look good, though.
- October 13, 2011 at 9:57 AM
Alright, I give up. You're right. You still have missed my point and completely ignored distinctions I have made. But I give up. I am beaten into submission. I have completely misunderstood what you have said. I now agree with you that biases are OK. I now think that it is a waste of my time to try to base my judgments on facts. I have decided that the terms "bias" and "tendency" have the same meaning. Nothing I have said that you disagree with even has merit or is worth consideration, etc.
- October 13, 2011 at 11:06 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
I now agree with you that biases are OK.
Dude. I didn't say that they were ok. I said they are a fact of life, that intelligent, well-socialized people behave in a way that acknowledges this fact, and that failure to do so communicates legitimate information.
I have decided that the terms "bias" and "tendency" have the same meaning.
I didn't say that 'bias' and 'tendency' are synonymous. I said that a bias is a certain kind of tendency.
I now think that it is a waste of my time to try to base my judgments on facts.
What is wrong with you? Where is this principle of charity that you insist other people observe when interpreting you?
- October 13, 2011 at 11:33 AM
I now invoke the no-comment-paradox ;)
- October 13, 2011 at 11:36 AM
- CTS said...
I'm going to throw another wrench or two into this farrago.
Someone has noted, here, that judging people, in part, on their choice of clothing for a professional interview is not unjustified/ill-founded/whatever. I agree.
If you (a) do not know what the norms are for a professional interview or (b) do not care, I have reason to have some concerns about you as a potential colleague and a teacher. I want my colleagues to be reasonably socially savvy (so as to deal with the Admin, with parents and Board members, and so as to not embarrass us with other colleagues) and to not make themselves immediate objects of ridicule to our students (whose 'biases' are a lot more potent than most of mine).
I might also simply wonder if you are a bit immature, and/or I might feel reluctant to be saddled with mentoring on dress as well as – you know – the substantive parts of our work.
This does not mean everyone has to clone their appearance on some abstract model. You are a man with long hair worn in a ponytail? Fine; it should be clean and relatively un-messy. You prefer a dress-shirt and slacks to a full suit? Fine; they should be clean, neat, and not wildly colorful. You are a woman who prefers a dress or shirt and skirt to the suit? Fine; all should be clean, neat, not 'loud,' and not very excessively revealing. Most will be safest with the clone-approach, to be sure. But that is not what is required.
By the way, I have interviewed people who smelled of vomit and/or booze, wore truly bizarre/loud and ill-matched clothes, appeared to be wearing their work-out togs, exposed enough breast (women) to distract even me (another woman). Was any of this decisive? No – except for the booze/vomit folks.
But, in competition with other really smart and accomplished candidates, those others just did not measure up.
There is no reason that great philosophers should be seen as lacking all common [social] sense. We can be extremely intelligent and not look like a long-term homeless person, an adolescent, a slob, or a prostitute.
- October 13, 2011 at 4:09 PM
"Hooker" boots? Really?
Why the focus on women's clothing?
- October 13, 2011 at 4:56 PM
Hm, I dunno, CTS. I think philosophers who dress low-status and unfashionably do fine with students (Chalmers), have no problem with administrators (Kim Sterelny), and probably don't have much to do with any board members. I know many, many philosophers with lousy social skills and in most cases they made very good colleagues. True, I can think of a few philosophers with bad social skills who didn't make good colleagues at all. But in my experience there just isn't any correlation.
Here are three facts about me to help readers interpret my comment. (1) All the examples I was thinking of are men. (2) I am a man. (3) I don't dress well myself.
Oh, and I guess I would have thought it went without saying that it's desirable not to show up at an interview covered in your own vomit.
wv: sordi
Almost sordid.
- October 13, 2011 at 5:07 PM
- zombie said...
Whose vomit should one show up covered in, if not one's own?
(OK, babies get a pass on that one.)
- October 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM
- zombie said...
And yeah, hooker boots. You know what they look like. Why women's clothes? Well, women do hold up half the sky, and they presumably also wear clothes, and because the example I used concerned a woman. But a man who showed up to an APA interview wearing hooker boots (or flip flops, or slippers, or those Vibram shoes with the toes) would also be dressed inappropriately.
(Are the kids wearing those toe shoes everywhere, or just on my campus?)
- October 13, 2011 at 8:17 PM
"There is no reason that great philosophers should be seen as lacking all common [social] sense."
Personally, I get very annoyed when academics use the "oh, but I'm an academic, har har" excuse as a reason not to be socially savvy, or have any sense of proper social etiquette. Being an academic does not excuse one from being a person.
- October 14, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Whoa, I think I know Vomit Guy. (Unless there is more than one, in which case, also whoa.) A friend of mine has a job horror story in which one of his friends became suddenly violently ill the morning before his interview, and in the course of taking her to the ER, he wound up with vomit on him, and was unable to change for some reason. (I forget the details--whether he ran out of time or only had one suit.) He reports this as one of the more mortifying experiences of his life.
I think I would've tried to reschedule the interview, as anything is better than showing up smelling of vomit. But I guess people don't always think carefully under stress.
- October 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM
- djc said...
thanks all! the fashion and personality assessments are much appreciated. i did wear a tie on the job market (see also here). that reminds me -- i'm going to a wedding tomorrow. i must go out and buy some decent shoes.
[while i'm here: check out major progress on the philjobs front.]
- October 14, 2011 at 4:03 PM
- CTS said...
@Anon 1:10:
So, I interviewed, with my colleagues, two absolutely vomit/booze smelling candidates ( there were others over the years about whom our SCs debated).
In both cases, we tried to figure out if the candidate was an unfortunate victim of circumstances (had the flu and vomited on the way to the interview, for example). This is not an easy conversation to have, as you might imagine. But, in one case the candidate happily told us he had only had one other interview that day – many hours earlier than hours. In the other case, we were all quite sure that the candidate was 'still' drunk.
Clearly, these are (we all hope) rare cases. I did not mean to have folks focus on these sorts of cases. I wanted to make the point that there are norms for professional interviews and that people who hope to be hired into a professional position should make the effort to understand the norms of interviewing in their desired profession.
- October 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Anon 9:40,
It would clearly be a mistake to hire any candidate who shows up in a tuxedo. This is a sartorial blunder of a degree far beyond mere hooker boots. APA interviews are held in the afternoon by and large, and a tuxedo is evening wear.
Now, if a candidate shows up in a cutaway and striped trousers (top hat optional) do hire them on the spot.
- October 14, 2011 at 11:57 PM
And yeah, hooker boots. You know what they look like.
I'm late the thread here, I'm afraid. For those of us who don't frequent hookers, what are "hooker boots"?
As for the five-toed boots, how are those inappropriate? At least in an interview with an AOS in Ninjutsu.
- October 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM
- zombie said...
- October 16, 2011 at 8:11 PM
"They couldn't prove whose vomit it was … You can't dust for vomit."
- October 17, 2011 at 4:24 AM
So, basically, they're leather boots? (Of the four pictures in your link, three have high heels, but one doesn't.) Who knew?
Not sure what I see wrong with leather boots, but to each her own.
- October 17, 2011 at 7:25 AM
Yeah, I'm sorry to wade in again. I am sure people are sick of hearing me go on. But, as far as I can tell zombie, any tall boots would count as hooker boots for you. I can imagine a very tastefully dressed woman wearing tall boots, especially in the winter.
Oh yeah: and I guess I did get the gist of this conversation wrong. It is indeed about whether or not to show up to your interviews drunk and having pissed yourself or vomited on yourself. Who knew?
- October 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM
I want to raise a similar question to the one zombie raises here: What are the biases against those candidates for whom English is a second language? How much does one's accent influence her/his epistemic reliability as a scholar, as well as a potential teacher, in the context of the job interviews? Do some accents (e.g., of French speakers) make one sound more sophisticated and knowledgeable than others (e.g., east asian)? What kind of measures, if any, are taken to prevent this sort of bias?
- October 17, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Ugh. Accents, eh? I'm Canadian and I worry about sounding dumb. So, like we are ahouwt and ahbouwt the other day, eh? And we stopped at the bur eh, and perked ur cur in the yerd eh...
Yeah, great for a laugh in class. Doesn't sound so good in interviews. Drat!
- October 17, 2011 at 1:15 PM
So here's a question I think worth asking regarding women in philosophy: suppose you're relatively attractive...play it up or down? It seems you're fucked either way, since pretty girls can't be smart, but attractive people do better on the job market. A male friend of mine thinks play up attractiveness if in a group of males regardless, since libido rules. How depressing.
- October 17, 2011 at 1:18 PM
- zombie said...
So, no, ANY leather boot would not count as a hooker boot. I'm kind of surprised, I must say, that it is not apparent what sort of boot a "hooker boot" is.
Perhaps, to paraphrase Potter Stewart, a hooker boot is the sort of thing that it hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
- October 18, 2011 at 7:50 AM
It might have been more clear if you had given us a link to, say, a pic of Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman" instead of the link you did provide. Now them's some hooker boots!
Still, I can't imagine that someone might think this would be appropriate interview attire, but maybe I am overly optimistic here.
- October 18, 2011 at 8:12 AM
As a guy, my attitude has always been that women can (and do) wear pretty much anything to interviews, conferences, etc. There are clear standards for men (pants not shorts, full-button shirt with precisely one pocket, tie, blazer) but without similarly clear standards for women, it's pretty much anything goes.
I'd say jeans are alright for men or women, as long as they're clean and neat, and long leather boots would be appropriate with jeans. There might be other circumstances where boots would be appropriate, for example an APA in San Antonio, or any candidate who has a teaching persona as a sort of cowboy (or gopi).
In sum, all of this hooker boot stuff seems like an example of the kind of arbitrary standard that worries a lot of candidates, particularly when you say there's no actual definition of a hooker boot. Are there also gigolo pocket protectors that I need to avoid?
- October 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Are there also gigolo pocket protectors that I need to avoid?
Not in my experience. I have found that one must protect his gigolo pockets at all costs.
- October 18, 2011 at 9:16 AM


text:
Labour peer Lord Andrew Adonis has claimed that the House of Lords should move north – to Salford Quays.
The former government transport minister, says moving parliament's upper house would shift politics away from 'Planet London'.
Writing in this week's Spectator magazine, he says: "London is New York, Washington and LA rolled into one, which is unhealthy for our national politics.
"So I have a serious suggestion. If the House of Lords is to be reformed in the next year, part of the reform should be to move it out to a city in the Midlands or the north, maybe next to the relocated BBC in MediaCity in Salford Quays.
"Half of our national politicians would then assemble well away from 'Planet London'. The public purse would make a net saving by selling the vast and expensive property portfolio the Lords has been acquiring to house its 850 members along Millbank and the surrounding streets. And yes, yours truly — a Londoner and proud of it — would be happy to lead the way."

subset: commoncrawl


text: I'm trying to update to 2.2.2, I downloaded and installedthe first update, and I can successfully download the froyo update, but it won't go all the way through. It will finish downloading, prompt me to install, then power down to install, but when it installs it gets to about 35%, then shows the triangle with the ! In it and reboots. HELP. Edit: I'm rooted with stock everything, and have system reset twice hoping it would work. No luck.


text:
Tant,tantalum wrote:I think you are looking at it in the wrong way. Oullet may not be a lock to make the team, but that doesn't really matter as the main idea behind such a deal is to free up about a million in cap space.. Oullet would provide scoring depth for atleast the Moose and perhaps develop into a player for the canucks. With the number of bottom 6 bodies Nonis has right now he can move someone else into Cooke's spot that makes considerably less and use the extra money to sign Carter or another legitimate top 6 forward. It eliminates a scoring question mark on the top two lines.
With Linden, Kesler, Santala, Pyatt, Bulis, Bouck, Chouinard, King, Schultz, Oullet you then have enough bodies to round out the lineup by plugging the other top 6 RW spot (i.e. Bulis, Pyatt, King or Schultz or some combination thereof) while rounding out a decent bottom 6.
Nonis has built up the bottom 6 depth. I think there is a reason for this beyond injury depth. It gives him flexibility to move a body and free up cap space if he sees a player on the UFA market or trade market that he thinks can help round out the top 6.
Can't argue with your logic about our bottom 6 depth. I agree with you that Nonis has done this with the idea that someone, likely Cooke, is now expendable. However:
1) I think some people here believe that Ouelet would move right into our top six and be a force with the Sedins or Mo and Naz. IMO this is a stretch.
2) If the move would create enough space to sign a Carter or Dumont then DO IT DO IT DO IT! But I can't see it happening. Even if those guys would want to play here I don't see this freeing up the space. After our RFA's sign we will be butting up against 42-43 million. Remove Cooke and you still only have 1.5 - 2 at the most and that isn't going to land either of those guys IMO.
...I'm getting tired of debating rumors. Can't wait for training camp!!!


text:
"Fire destroys Sugar Hill recording studio"
Newly created PDFs on this website are accessible. If you have a disability and need this PDF in an alternate format, please contact firstname.lastname@example.com for assistance.
About the collection
Compiled by Bill Adler, a noted journalist and founding VP of Publicity at Def Jam Recordings, the Adler archive contains thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, recording industry press releases and artist bios, correspondence, photographs, posters, flyers, advertising, and other documents. These materials offer an unprecedented view into hip hop's history and are made available here for study and research.


text:
Photos courtesy of Gil Talbot Photography.
BRIDGEPORT, Pa.- Devan Kennifer and Laurel McCarthy of the Harvard women's water polo team took home two of the three Collegiate Water Polo Association Northern Division weekly awards. Kennifer was recognized as the Player of the Week and McCarthy was tabbed the Defensive Player of the Week, announced by the CWPA league office.
Kenner tallied 11 goals and seven steals to lead Harvard to a 3-3 week. The sophomore posted a hat-trick against Fresno Pacific, buried a marker against No. 15 UC-Davis and registered hat-tricks in a win over No. 19 Cal State-East Bay and a loss to No. 17 Pacific. She concluded the week with a solo score in a 13-10 victory over Cal State-Monterey Bay to help the Crimson move to 11-8 on the season. This marks the second time this season that Kennifer has been named the Northern Division Player of the Week. She garnered the accolade March 8 for her performance at the Elite Eight tournament.
McCarthy turned away 28 shots in the week-long trip to the Golden State. The sophomore netminder made five saves in a 7-4 win over Fresno Pacific in just three periods of play. McCarthy turned aside three shots in losses to No. 15 UC-Davis and No. 7 San Jose State. McCarthy played a key role in helping the Crimson down No. 19 Cal State-East Bay, making four stops in the game. The sophomore blocked seven shots in a loss to No. 17 Pacific and six shots in a win over Cal State-Monterey Bay to close out the week. The award is the first weekly honor from the CWPA awarded to McCarthy and marks the first time a Harvard player has garnered the Defensive Player of the Week award since the accolade's inception prior to the 2010 season.


text:
Composition No 181
Mara Minuzzo
Oil on canvas.
36 × 36 × 1.5 in (91.4 × 91.49 × 3.8 cm)
Free Shipping within Canada, the Contiguous United States.
Although primarily known for her works of contemporary realism in both painting and drawing multi-faceted artist Mara Minuzzo has recently expanded her practice to include vibrant abstract works. For the artist these new works in oil represent a refreshing counterbalance to her laborious representational works in acrylic and graphite, which typically take her weeks if not months to complete. Primarily self-taught, her diverse influences include the natural world, people, illustration and architecture. While her realism works centre of an overall theme of illusion and pushing the boundaries of the genre, her abstract works are about playful interplays of colour, line and shape.
The Lustre Instalment Plan gives you the opportunity to spread the cost of your purchase over time. Simply make a deposit of at least 25% of the artwork price and we will hold it for you until you've paid for it in full, through flexible payments that you decide the amount and frequency of. Once your balance is paid we ship you your new artwork:) We charge no interest or administration fees and when eligible, shipping is free. If you'd like to use our plan to secure the artwork you love now just let us know and we'll get back to you promptly to get you started.


text:
TJ-70 ThermoJet Hot Air/Convective Handpiece (IntelliHeat)
Finger-Actuated Hot Air Soldering Handpiece with Pencil Grip
PACE's TJ-70 Mini ThermoJet provides safe, rapid installation or removal of chip components, SOT's, SOIC's, PLCC's, QFP's and other surface mounted devices via controlled convective/hot air. A finger-actuated air switch and IntelliHeat Control provide safe, "instant use" capability without constant running of an air pump. The TJ-70's pencil grip design lets you target controlled heat right at the solder joints without affecting adjacent components solder or damaging the pc board. Also effective for heat shink tubing applications and for conformal coating removal via convective softening of urethanes/over-curing of epoxies. For use on IntelliHeat-compatible systems only.
230 V Part #: 7023-0003-P1


text:
This range has been influenced by the furniture from times of the Maharaj and is made in quality Sheesham wood (Indian Rosewood). This gives all the pieces of furniture a look of quality and beauty, the wood itself has the most beautiful grain and by being stained and waxed this truly makes the furniture look stunning.
|Width (cm)
|Depth (cm)
|Height (cm)
Availability: Approx 6 to 9 weeks.


text:
WENATCHEE, Wash. - A haze of thick smoke formed Tuesday over vast swaths of the West as wildfires forced more residents to flee their homes in several states.
Fire officials reported seven homes were destroyed and hundreds of people were evacuated near Casper, Wyo., where a wildfire has burned across almost 24 square miles. In western Montana, fire crews said there was no containment in sight for a blaze that has prompted an evacuation order for 400 houses west of Hamilton.
With winds dying down, fire crews in eastern Washington were hopeful they could gain ground on dozens of fires sparked by weekend lightning storms, but more evacuation orders were issued Tuesday as a wildfire continued to move in the hills west of Wenatchee, a fruit capital on the banks of the Columbia River.
Residents of nearly 120 homes were evacuated due to the fire burning about 140 miles east of Seattle.
About 160 firefighters from across the state gathered to help fight the blaze. Resident Shannon Grosdidier and her four daughters delivered oatmeal cookies to several stationed at the end of her street Monday night.
"The wind has died down, which is good," she said. "But I've got the photo albums in the car and our overnight bags packed."
Only a shed has been lost near Wenatchee, and no injuries have been reported at what appeared to be the most-threatening of numerous wildfires in the state that were sparked by lightning Saturday.
In Montana, Sawtooth Fire spokesman Gregg DeNitto with the U.S. Forest Service said there was no word on when residents there might be allowed to return. The fire exploded over the past two days from just over 1 square mile to more than 6, although no houses were reported lost.
"Most of the structures are still a half-mile to a mile from the fire's edge," DeNitto said.
Firefighters got help from the weather in Wyoming, where cooler temperatures and calmer winds bought time to put more people and equipment into action around two large fires.
As many as 750 homes were threatened by the large wildfire near Casper. Some 400 people were evacuated from 150 homes.
Firefighters on Tuesday planned to deploy more than a dozen aircraft against the blaze, including two air tankers and seven helicopters.
Blazes have scorched more than 8.1 million acres across the West so far this year, up from the 10-year average of 6.1 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
In Utah, nearly 100 property owners filed a lawsuit Tuesday in state district court blaming a utility for one of the state's largest wildfires this year.
The lawsuit against Rocky Mountain Power alleges arcing between power transmission lines sparked the 75-square-mile Wood Hollow Fire, which destroyed 52 cabins or houses in central Utah and left one man dead in June.
Rocky Mountain Power told The Associated Press the lawsuit is unnecessary because the utility is pursuing out-of-court settlements with dozens of families. The company admits no fault.
Rocky Mountain Power initially blamed a thief who stripped protective cooper wire from one of its transmission poles. However, a state fire investigator determined the ground wire wasn't designed to absorb a powerful arc between separate high-voltage lines.
Other blazes burning across the West include:
— The Horsethief Canyon Fire, which has burned about 4 square miles south of the resort town of Jackson, Wyo. Firefighters were working to protect the town and the Jackson Hole valley's main communications towers from the blaze. About 1,000 residents have been warned to be prepared to leave in case the blaze gets too close. The fire was 10 percent contained Tuesday.
— The Millie Fire, burning 20 miles south of Bozeman, Mont. The fire continued to threaten the city's water supply and 10 commercial buildings. Fire spokeswoman Jennifer Myslivy said the flames were stopped for now at the top of a ridge over South Cottonwood Canyon, sparing adjacent areas that serve as Bozeman's watershed.
— The Pole Creek Fire southwest of the town of Sisters in central Oregon. About 300 firefighters were assigned to blaze, which was burning most heavily in the Three Sisters Wilderness Area. The fire area had grown to nearly 7 square miles, or 4,300 acres, by Tuesday.
— As many as 80 fires sparked by lightning Saturday along the east slopes of the Cascades in Washington state. Most remained small, but one fire threatened homes near Grand Coulee Dam in Douglas and Grant counties and burned more than 23 square miles of sagebrush and grass. Another fire 17 miles southwest of Creston in Lincoln County burned across 28 square miles.
— A wildfire in a rugged area of the San Gabriel Mountains northeast of Los Angeles, which was 91 percent contained Tuesday after burning 6½ square miles. The fire broke out over Labor Day weekend, sending thousands of visitors from the Angeles National Forest and keeping out thousands more. A few dozen residents had to evacuate but were allowed to return late last week.
We're revamping our Comments section. Learn more and share your input.


text:
Tooling Article
Right-Angle Cordset Ideal for Tight Spaces
Turck Inc. Minneapolis, MN, introduces, reportedly, the first-ever fully overmolded right-angle RJ45 connector cordset on the market. The cordset is ideal for connections in tight spaces and Ethernet panel builders, and it complements Turck's Ethernet cabinet adapter.
The right-angle RJ45 connector is overmolded with polyurethane and comes with internal or external tabs. The cables also are available with or without shielding in four- or eight-wire configurations and stranded conductors.
Turck Inc.: 800/544-7769; www.turck.com
See also: Turck, Inc.
Related Enterprise Zones: Sensing/Electronics
Reader Comments
There are no comments posted at this time.


text:
Is joyourself Legit or a Scam?
Costs, Features, and more about joyourself .com
First off as a matter of full disclosure in all our reviews we must share that joyourself is also powered by Streamen.com. In cases where the same underlining business runs the site, some of the reviews may be the same in order to be fair to these sites.
Therefore, users should be made aware that you can access all the gay male cams on one site, just the same as you can on the other. Even your password and username works on both sites once you register on either. However, what makes joyourself .com reviews different from any other site is our detailed and honest approach.
Features of joyourself .com:
- Billing: joyourself Billing is discreet so you know have a personal banker that gets the ebby jeebies when you come to the counter. (NOTE: You will find that is the case with most gay cam sites these days!)
- HD: This featured, of course, depends on each performer. The site is High-Def enabled but the performer must have an HD connection/CAM to enable that.
- Favourite Features: joyourself feature of which you can mark any model as a personal favourite then merely click on, 'my favourites' and see the full list.
- Search: You can narrow down your gay cam search by more than 50 parameters.
- Support: This site offers 24/7 live support and typical reply time-frames are 5-6 hours.
- Categories are as follows:
How many Gay Models are joyourself :
There are more than 7,000 registered gay internet models here with more registering every day. Typically there are between 400-500 at all times; so the selection is never an issue. A screenshot of one of the most popular gay webcam models for 2015, at least thus far is below.
SITES LIKE joyourself :
As far as Gay Live Webcams sites joyourself , is a one-of-kind site only to the extent that it is a different brand from the same company No REALLY, the entire platform and parent site is called Jasmin.com. Granted it does have a fresh new look and there is no problem using this version instead of Jasmin if you prefer JOYourself.
BECOMING A INTERNET MODEL ON joyourself :
As far as modelling on joyourself you are a guy looking to start making money as a gay internet model you can register here.
You cannot create an exact duplicate of joyourself but this site here offers affiliate marketers a similar type site where the person that markets the site makes 30 cents of every dollar generated. Considering the average user spends $50.00 per month on cams, once 1000 people register on a site and actually use it the income can be downright huge.
DETAILS ON THE joyourself AFFILIATE PROGRAM?
Yes, there is a gay live webcams affiliate program for joyourself which is located here here.
joyourself REVIEWS / DETAILED SUMMARY:
I had nothing but a great time checking out and testing this gay live webcam site. I was purely focused on the costs as well as the user experience at joyourself . There was very fast response times, a very detailed log off my past shows making it easy to skip back and find past models I interacted with, and a HUGE SELECTION.
Or go Gay webcam site reviews comparison table here


text:
Mother of pearl inlay furniture
Moroccan furniture
Unique furniture
Carved furniture
Moroccan bedding
Lounge chair
Mosaic tables
Wrought iron
Moroccan home decor
Moroccan ceilings
Moroccan Doors
Sink cabinets
Moroccan tile
Garden pottery
Plaster artwork
Moroccan fountains
Moroccan lanterns
Stucco floor lamps
Moroccan lamps
Large chandeliers
Henna lamps
Moroccan sconces
Camel Bone Mirrors
Antique pottery
Rugs & Kilims
Room divider
Moroccan Fabric
Moroccan gifts
Moroccan tagine
Moroccan Poufs
Unique gifts
Interiors books
Smoking Hookah
Customer service
Privacy & Security
Store policy
Shipping Policy
2018 justmorocco selection is coming soon!!!.
Justmorocco Imports
Tropicana Industrial warehouse
29712 US Highway 19 N # 407,Clearwater Fl 33761
Florida, USA
Tel:(727)251 4803
Fax: 727-787-5903
Fall Clearance...Check out a huge selection ON SALE
View price in:
US Dollar (USD)
Canadian Dollar (CAD)
Euros (EUR)
Australian Dollar (AUD)
Pounds Sterling (GBP)
Swiss Franc (CHF)
Yen (JPY)
Bahraini Dinar (BHD)
Baht (THB)
Barbados Dollar (BBD)
Bermudian Dollar (BMD)
Brunei Dollar (BND)
Chilean Peso (CLP)
Cyprus Pound (CYP)
Danish Krone (DKK)
Egyptian Pound (EGP)
Fiji Dollar (FJD)
Hong Kong Dollar (HKD)
Iceland Krona (ISK)
Indian Rupee (INR)
Iranian Rial (IRR)
Israeli Shekel (ILS)
Jordanian Dinar (JOD)
Kenyan Shilling (KES)
Kuwaiti Dinar (KWD)
Lebanese Pound (LBP)
Malaysian Ringgit (MYR)
Mexican Peso (MXN)
Netherlands Antilles (ANG)
New Zealand Dollar (NZD)
Norwegian Krone (NOK)
Pakistan Rupee (PKR)
Philippine Peso (PHP)
Polish Zloty (PLN)
Rand (ZAR)
Rupiah (IDR)
Russian Rouble (RUB)
Saudi Riyal (SAR)
Singapore Dollar (SGD)
South-Korean Won (KRW)
Sudanese Dinar (SDD)
Sudanese Pound (SDP)
Sweden Krona (SEK)
Syrian Pound (SYP)
Turkish Lira (TRL)
United Arab Emirates (AED)
Yuan Renminbi (CNY)
> Moroccan tile
> Moorish
Your Price:
Inventory information:
Sold out available in 12weeks, order yours now
In the late 19th century, mass reproduction of intricately designed floor tiles became possible, and they became a common feature in the interiors of buildings in cities all around the Mediterranean. Centuries ago cement floor tiles were put only in palaces of Granada & Sevilla for moorish queens, this art has been spread quickly to France, Italy...
Moroccan cement tile are hand painted with a touch of moorish moroccan design patterns
very sturdy & well made for floor use purpose.
Each tile measures 8" x 8" Thickness is 5/8"
Finish : Matt finish
Weight: 3.3 LBS
Handmade in Morocco
Product Reviews
Write an online review
and share your thoughts.
New Arrivals: Moroccan palace arches and ceilings. 2006 selection
Check out our new selection of moroccan tile sinks.Click Here..
New products are being added: Mosaic tables & tile tops,mosaic tile, pool area mosaic tile tables, moroccan mosaic tiles...!
A great selection of serving & cooking tagines,recipes, lower prices & better quality....
Affordable pottery, plates & bowls, moroccan pottery...
New selection of antique vases which were found in the souks of south of morocco. One of a kind camel bone ceramic larges vases & arabic - moroccan hebrew calligraphy vases
Customer service
Privacy & Security
Contact us
Links exchange
Justmorocco Furniture Imports 29870 US HWY 19N REAR(congress)Clearwater FL 33761 USA Tel 727 251 4803
All rights reserved. Copyright justmorocco 2019


text:
In California, the agency that monitors working conditions in the state is also in charge of making sure all roller coasters and other theme park, fair and carnival rides are safe. Peter Melton is with Cal OSHA. He says inspections are regular and thorough:
"There's a review of all training documents and ride manuals. There's an examination of training procedures and there's also an unannounced inspection to insure that written policies are being followed."
Melton says customers can take charge of their own safety as well by alerting operators to anything they notice about a ride that seems unsafe.
According to the Center for Injury Research Policy at the Nationwide Children's Hospital, about 4,400 children are hospitalized each year for injuries they receive on amusement park and carnival rides.


text:
Online booking
For any occasion the perfect gift: With the blue edition you or the donee enjoy the hotel comfort of each a&o Hotel and Hostel. This is currently available as a practical box and will be sent to you by post. With the orange edition you choose the practical box for fans of the hostel community.
This will also be sent to you after purchase by post.
a&o TO GO blue
a&o TO GO orange
· 2 nights for 2 persons in a double room
· 2 nights for 1 person in a dorm room
Box Content:
Box Content:
Super, so you have chosen the appropriate voucher for yourself!
Please note that the voucher can not be redeemed at fairs and special dates and is subject to availability. This means, that a&o's vouchers work separately from the normal online booking process on aohostels.com. In the hotel industry, we call this hotel allotment; a specific amount of free rooms and beds especially blocked for guests with vouchers.
You can reach a&o 7 days around the clock and find us already at over 31 locations in Germany, Netherlands, Austria and the Czech Republic. Hotels in Denmark and Italy open in 2017!
A&O offers spacious double rooms with TV, comfortable beds for maximum comfort, and modern bathrooms with fresh towels and a hair dryer in the rooms. Besides, guests can enjoy their stay right in the heart of the city with perfect connections to public transport.
We also look forward to welcome children! The coupon owner can just give our service personnel a call and tell how many kids will be joining the big city trip and we take care of the perfect family room and extra baby beds!
The gift box guarantees a good night's sleep and a good, tasty start to the day! That is why every day guests can enjoy our all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet for up to four hours with top brands like Tchibo, Granini, Kellogg's or Honneurs.


text:
ABRSM Piano Notes 2013-14
Music Teacher magazine's Piano Notes 2013-14 is the essential guide to teaching ABRSM's 2013-14 piano syllabus.
The only independent guide of its kind, Piano Notes takes the reader through the new syllabus piece by piece, with substantial and detailed advice for teaching each one.
Written by experts in the field, Piano Notes will take the legwork out of teaching the new ABRSM syllabus and ensure excellent results.