politics are still politics.

Whenever you have more than one person at a time in an environment, you have politics of some form or another.

People who proclaim how much interpersonal politics bothers them will have a much harder time getting ahead because you don't get out of the political game unless you're willing to compromise on a lot of things we work for.

But it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing game, just getting a LITTLE more comfortable talking and socializing can have massive benefits to your professional life.

That’s just not how the world works though… you will have to work with at least 1 person at a job (your boss), so you should be able to work well with at least 1 person. That doesn’t come through with just a resume.

so all they’ve got is the qualifications on the resume to judge them by.

This sounds good on paper, but the actual hiring decision is almost always based on interview vibes, sorry to say.

I have spent years in a professional environment, I can safely say that 90% of all the serious, disruptive issues we have on teams come from people who have unusual personalities or strong sense of entitlement and have to have things on their own time-frame expectations. or people who rub other team members wrong and this is where a manager who is perceptive and emotionally intelligent is critical, and why having those social skills puts you in a favorable position for advancement.

I would actually rather have someone with lacking qualifications who can learn to do the job and makes everyone else comfortable, than someone who irritates everyone but doesn't need much help with the work. One is far more detrimental to productivity and meeting goals than the other. I can train you to enter data. I can't train you to stop being a freak around women or to understand that you can't expect schedules to revolve around your rent checks or the latest fight you had with your SO. I will always do my best to help everyone but if one person is dragging everyone down, they're the first to go.

IMO, HR should hide the identifying information of candidates from people making the hiring decisions

That would shift towards another metric of whose resumes look the best. That might be an improvement, but we'd still be talking about how much bullshit there is in making your resume perfectly tailored to a particular opportunity. And at that point we're still talking about the skills that go into a grant application or a submission of a paper to a conference. That's the soft skills that make science possible, even if submissions are anonymized.

Only facts should matter, only agreed truth should be the topic the rest of it is very obviously poisoning the entirety of the effort to understand our world.

I don't understand how you'd prioritize things using only facts, and not some kind of extrinsic value system that assigns weights to those facts.

Let's say you have a huge infrared telescope sitting at a Lagrange point, between the earth and the sun. How would you determine what it should be observing at any given time? There's only 8760 hours in a year, and the telescope was designed to last for 5 years, with the hope of 10 years. How do you divide up that finite resource?

Now do the same for every particle collider, double blind medical study, paleontological excavation, test nuclear reactor, etc., fighting for a finite amount of science money, and you'll have no choice but to define priorities according to projections and uncertainties and value judgments.

One thing is how the world is, and another is how the world should be. The person you're replying to accurately depicts how the world is as of today, but isn't saying that is how it should be, which is what you're arguing.