Hacker News Reader

Yes, they want the people with "good autism".

It's insensitive sounding, but it's probably not that different from their hiring stance for all people. Using your numbers, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that only ~3% of neurotypical people could get a job at Microsoft, either.

Also, probably only ~3% (or less) of any other disadvantaged, disabled, or marginalized group.

But it feel like they're hiring "the right kind of <marginalized_group>", which has a repugnant history even decoupled from the severity of "common" autism.

So yeah, Microsoft should probably not have spun this as a PR opp.

Aside: there's probably a tasteless joke in there somewhere about socially-insensitive recruiting practices which target high-functioning autistic people.

I'm diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, with an IQ of > 140, and early in my career I worked at Microsoft.

This is a PR stunt, but I'm comfortable with it if it helps align people's optics to the idea that autistic traits can indeed be harnessed into a super valuable role in society. You'd be surprised how many people don't think that's the case.

Same, though sub-company was about to get promoted and they closed the entire office/branch, day after new years day. Ironic is it not.

That makes sense, but doesn't this get pretty uncomfortably close to supercrip thinking?

Maybe this is too much to ask but it would be nice if the choices weren't "simpleton unable to function" or "Rainman."

I know what you mean. I have a friend who is autistic and he is probably about average in intelligence.

That is a bad place to be for someone with autism as the behavioral issues means he has trouble finding work, but he can't get any government support because he isn't disabled enough.

It's unfortunate that discussions of autism make you uncomfortable. Would the world be better if Microsoft were not taking steps to accommodate autistic candidates in their hiring process?

Microsoft is already selective in their hiring process. It makes sense that they would be selective in regard to candidates with autism. What I find refreshing is their attempt to select on what matters and eliminate things like "what musical instrument do you play?" and "what is your favorite craft beer?" from their process.

On my company intranet is an article about us allegedly trying to do the exact same thing, and it eventually transpires that it was just world autism day so companies are throwing out the old "we're committed to equal opportunities in every way and would love to hire us some autistic people cause we're pro all the things that are _good_ and anti things that are _bad_"

As long as it doesn't negatively impact the bottom line obviously.

You're putting words into someones mouth and then getting angry about it. Sounds like you should be irritated at yourself. Let's look at what was actually said:

> "Many may have strengths such as accuracy, a good eye for detail and reliability, which can benefit all sorts of businesses, not just the technology industry...."

and

> "Each individual is different, some have an amazing ability to retain information, think at a level of detail and depth or excel in math or code."

None of that indicates that anyone at Microsoft thinks all autists are the same or even that the ones they're interested in are the same. So, perhaps you should work on attaining better reading comprehension before you work yourself up into having another fight with yourself.

Look, I think there's some subtext to their statement, and I stick with that. You are fully within your rights to disagree with me on that. I see where you are coming from and I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

I definitely feel that there is some type-casting here for people with autism. They want them to be the dorky lovable genius that they see on The Big Bang Theory every weeknight at 5:30 and 6:30. I read subtext in the article as, "Yes, these people may have social issues, but they can make up for it with their intellect, and that's our motivator!" And I disagree with that.

These people don't need to qualify themselves at all. Their social issues are not intentional. They don't need to make up for anything. An autistic person with the same qualifications and skills should be considered for employment equally with someone not facing those difficulties.

And if an autistic person isn't a genius, well then he's just an average person who becomes an HR liability for being an asshole. That's what I sense from this article. You make some good criticisms though, I shouldn't have put in the "What they actually mean" part. I'll keep it in mind as I go forward, thank you.

Closing thought: We don't make homosexual programmers qualify themselves, right? Because we can accept that it's who they are, and that it wasn't their choice. So why is autism different? Because they might offend someone? I assure you, there are many people that are offended merely by the existence of homosexuality.