Polka Dot Mystery



  • Let me start by stating, this is not a troll. I'm not trying to start a flame war or even cause controversy. I simply want understanding. I'm asking all of you to help me comprehend what happened. Because to this day, it still confuses me.

    I was once on a panel of interviewers and this candidate walked in, who happened to be female. She was average on the technical competency scale, she could program, but in the end we were looking for someone more advanced. The interview had a portion where we gave the candidate a technical problem to solve and you had to spec it out on a whiteboard. Pretty typical stuff.

    The candidate went up to the whiteboard and started to draw some stuff out. Our panel group was listening intently. Well, when she turned around to draw, we noticed that...I'm so embarrassed to even type this...her polka dot underwear was showing through her pants.

    Please don't think that I'm off on another "clothes" issue. This is different.

    It wasn't just me who noticed. One interviewer (female) had a slight smirk on her face. Another interviewer (male) almost chuckled. I was simply shocked. The question flew into my mind...but why?

    Obviously I couldn't stop glancing at the strange sight. And this is not to say that I'm a pervert or that I was being harassing or anything like that. I just didn't get it. Oh, and in case you're wondering, I don't find polka dot anything sexy. So it's not like it was turning me on.

    The question haunts me to this day. Why? I mean, it doesn't make sense in several respects:

    1. Women (stereotypically) are better dressers than men. A woman (stereotypically) should know not to wear something so obvious if they are wearing lighter material or see-through pants
    2. The polka dots were not small. They were large black polka dots. Extremely obvious. It's not like you're going to just grab a pair of underwear and not notice. So it's not like it's an "oops, my bad" situation.
    3. Maybe it was the only clean pair she had? Somehow I doubt it. Women (stereotypically) have a large selection.
    4. Maybe this was her "lucky pair" and she wears them to ace all of her interviews. Ok, that makes sense, but why not wear darker pants then?
    5. Assuming that she wore them on purpose to enchant the male interviewers...what man finds polka dot underwear sexy?!?

     The list could go on.

    Can someone please explain to me why? Maybe there's something I'm missing.
     



  • @CPound said:

    Can someone please explain to me why? Maybe there's something I'm missing.

    Yes: most people are not obsessed with clothing. I can't remember the last time I paid any attention to what colour of underwear I put on in the morning, and I doubt I'm the only one. These things are just not important.



  • Flourescent lights are a lot less forgiving than the incandescent ones that most of us at home, maybe she couldn't tell.  That's assuming that she looked...when was the last time you checked your butt out in the mirror before leaving the house?  And that assumes that she had a full-length mirror so she could do so.   And it assumes she wasn't rushed and nervous as she ran out the door.

    You're making a big assumption that she did it on purpose, why do you believe it wasn't an honest mistake?  Never had a guy walk in to an interview with his fly down?  I did...I didn't immediate assume he did it on purpose in order to enchant me...

    -cw


     



  • First, I have a question -- was she hired, and if not, was the peep-show a factor?

     

    Second -- maybe it was a distractionary technique? Wooo, look at my ass so you don't notice how bad I'm doing on the whiteboard....



  • Just reading about polka dot underwear gets me excited.  I would have hired her before she even finished the problem!  Of course, that is assuming a was conducting and interview to hire a stripper or prostitute.  If I was conducting an interview for a programmer I probably would have smiled a little and then gone back to watching what she was saying.

     

    By the way, you seem to be basing your confusion of stereotypes and assumptions.   



  • My guess is that she previously wore different pants, but in the last minute for some reason decided to go with the see-through pants because they were a better fit for her, say, handbag. I don't believe she did that on purpose... if she was that kind of woman, black lace would have been a better choice (at least if I was the interviewer ;-)



  • @CodeWhisperer said:

    when was the last time you checked your butt out in the mirror before leaving the house? 

    I'm picturing, suit on, a backward glance over the mirror with the thought "Damn, I look good in this thing. You'd better believe I'm going to do some good coding today!"



  • Oh look, another episode of "CPound's House of Style".  Does anybody else think we should suggest to Alex a new article category for these ramblings?  I SO want to setup an RSS subscription to them.

     



  • @lpope187 said:

    Oh look, another episode of "CPound's House of Style". 


    More like "CPound's House of 'You owe me an answer'".

    -cw



  • @CodeWhisperer said:

    @lpope187 said:

    Oh look, another episode of "CPound's House of Style". 


    More like "CPound's House of 'You owe me an answer'".

    -cw

    I'm not out to attack CPound... but one of these days i sort of expect to see something like:

    "So this guy came in to an interview dressed in a clown suit, down to the red ball nose. I didn't hire him."

    I'm waiting for the punchline that brings this pulp-fiction-esq set of stories to a finale.



  • So what's the next post in this series going to be?

     

    "Well this one time, this guy came in wearing a RED tie! Since our company logo is predominantly blue, we held a meeting about this unprofessional behaviour, and needless to say, we fired the guy on the spot. We just couldn't comprehend what he was thinking. I'm still dazed and confused by this blatantly unprofessional action!"



  • You forgot the obligatory underlining and the irrelevant statements, or so the duck said!

     

    I like CPound, he gives this forum a special aroma.



  • @RayS said:

    So what's the next post in this series going to be?

     

    "Well this one time, this guy came in wearing a <font color="blue">RED</font> tie! Since our company logo is predominantly <font color="orange">blue</font>, we held a meeting about this unprofessional behaviour, and needless to say, we fired the guy on the spot. We just couldn't comprehend what he was thinking. I'm still dazed and confused by this blatantly unprofessional action!"

     

    fixed that for you 



  • @CapitalT said:

    I like CPound, he gives this forum a special aroma.

    heh... one that requires a clothespin. :D



  • @RayS said:

    We just couldn't comprehend what he was thinking. I'm still dazed and confused by this blatantly unprofessional action!"

    Best line of the morning.

    -cw



  • If I could figure out a way to grab the "Virginia Quilter" ad with all the polka-dot quilts that appears under CPound's post I'd paste it here.

    I think CPound is challenging himself to write posts that pull weird ads.

    Edit:  now it's Hurricane Relief.  (why?)

     



  • Someone emailed me some pics...I understand completely now.

    She was trying to entice the audience and polka dots are sexy.

    What was I thinking?!?



  • Polka dots...

    so sexy



  • The real WTF is that when looking at the first reply, I wondered how the second guy set up such a large avatar. Then realized, doh, it's an ad ...



  • @CPound said:

    Polka dots...

    so sexy

    You have a pretty impressive collection already, C. 



  • Theory: The candidate wanted to make a reference to her experience with Sun machines... as in

    "We are the dot in .com" 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.