4 ms·
I would draw the opposite conclusion from that data. The mode difference was 0, and 91% of people were within 1 star of the interviewer. Without knowing what t
by RyanCavanaugh 10y ago
I would draw the opposite conclusion from that data. The mode difference was 0, and 91% of people were within 1 star of the interviewer.
Without knowing what the interviewer's bar is for any particular star level, I don't see how the interviewees could do any better. Rounding to 1-star increments amplifies relatively small changes -- if the interviewer rounds up 3.6 to 4 and you round 3.4 down to 3.
- searine 10y ago"You probably interviewed as bad as you think you did" is not a catchy clickbait title.
- Retric 10y ago+/- 1 star is a huge range. That's 50th to 90th percentile.
- throw_away_777 10y agoYeah, the way the data was presented was not informative. The heat maps are interesting to look at, but don't really convey the information well - the colors are basically useless. You have to hover over everything, at which point it should be presented as a table or a better picture. It is pretty clear from one of the plots that interviewers and interviewees grade on a different curve - the mean interviewee scores themselves lower than the mean interviewer does. But once you correct for this, it seems that people are actually pretty good judges of how well they did. I'm honestly surprised by how low the R-squared was, I wonder if they included an intercept?
- nck4222 10y agoThere's also the possibility that interviewees are better at rating themselves than interviewers. For the purpose of this article, interviewer ratings are considered the absolute truth while interviewee ratings are not, which is obviously not always the case in reality.