3 ms·
Of course computers are better than humans when they both have same amount of rigid standardized data. The elephant in the room is: when you do in-person inter
by guard-of-terra 11y ago
Of course computers are better than humans when they both have same amount of rigid standardized data.
The elephant in the room is: when you do in-person interview, human captures much more data than computer will ever know. We make dives into candidate's background and skills. Dives that you can't put into data model.
Of course that doesn't matter much for low-skill jobs.
- mattlutze 11y agoI suppose a follow-up would then be to test 1: hires only made by algorithm vs 2: hires that had human initial screening and then a human interview, and maybe vs 3: hires that had algorithm initial screening and then human interviews. I think we often assume that #2 gives us the best chance at the right cultural/skill fit, and fall back to #3 when we don't want to give our recruitment departments enough money for the staff needed in #2. But it's possible that the in-person interview ends up affecting the interviewer's biases such that #1 provides a better overall result than #2 or #3. Complication certainly ensues when, as others said, the applicants (or the new Professional Application Assistant industry that will pop up) learns how to game the algorithms.
- jqm 11y agoThe thing about computers is they aren't easily charmed. Interviewers sometimes are. So on occasion get people who shouldn't be in a job based solely on looks, attitude or ability to smooth talk. Very often these types of hires don't work out and/or cause problems. I know I've seen this more than a few times and I bet you have too.
- benten10 11y agoYou say that as if it's a bad thing ; ) The thing about being charmed is: there's a reason you like being charmed. Charmers are likely to get along with the team together, and make the clients happier. Sure, you need to be good at whatever you are doing, but charming is an inherent part of your skillset.
- osullivj 11y agoCharm can also be used to hide a multitude of sins. Some of my worst working experiences have happened after taking on projects sold to me by charming managers. Beware charm!
- benten10 11y agoI guess that's where the term CONfidence man comes from: because they charm your pants off, and then rob you. Still, I'd argue it's a net asset than a liability. Guess that's how your managers got where they were though: by charming.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoPsychopaths are notorious for their apparent charm and charisma. It isn't usually a good idea to hire one. They will destroy any team they work in, and if given enough power will kill any company they're employed by.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoI think that some psychopats can be quite productive in healthy teams. It's just that they're the first ones to use any flaw for their own benefit.