3 ms·

I actually see two red flags based on the candidate’s response, so I’d argue that this answer is rather telling. 1) The candidate demonstrates a lack of intell

I actually see two red flags based on the candidate’s response, so I’d argue that this answer is rather telling. 1) The candidate demonstrates a lack of intellectual curiosity (and maybe even common sense) when they say “that’s impossible!” and move on. 2) The candidate attempted to pass off their (inaccurate) assessment as fact without even a shred of self-doubt. Colleagues like this are infuriating to work with.

threatofrain 9y ago
But do you actually think you have found an effective measurement device for intellectual curiosity, persistence despite failure, or ability to examine personal errors? If we are trying to measure some kind of mental ability as a predictor to work performance, one might question whether interviewer ability to extract such deeper insights from these questions is actually more effective than a g test.
- somestag 9y ago
  You can criticize any interview technique by questioning whether it can really effectively measure <X>. The answer is always no, and even if it were yes, you can go on to point out that <Y> is also important and is not effectively measured. I would probably not give this question in an interview, but if I did, I'd care a lot more about how the interviewee reacted to it than about getting the right answer. The people I want to work with are people who respond to weird questions with curiosity, not with guesses and a lack of followup. For a question that presumably would only take a few minutes to ask, it's decent enough. A bad question would be one that by design gives no information (or worse, gives misleading information), and this question does better than that. Am I guaranteed to learn about their curiosity? No. In particular, candidates who are very nervous are more likely to clam up than start teasing out the details of the question. That's unfortunate, but hopefully this isn't your only interview question so there are still other opportunities for the candidate to show their stuff.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

threatofrain 9y ago

But do you actually think you have found an effective measurement device for intellectual curiosity, persistence despite failure, or ability to examine personal errors? If we are trying to measure some kind of mental ability as a predictor to work performance, one might question whether interviewer ability to extract such deeper insights from these questions is actually more effective than a g test.

somestag 9y ago
You can criticize any interview technique by questioning whether it can really effectively measure <X>. The answer is always no, and even if it were yes, you can go on to point out that <Y> is also important and is not effectively measured. I would probably not give this question in an interview, but if I did, I'd care a lot more about how the interviewee reacted to it than about getting the right answer. The people I want to work with are people who respond to weird questions with curiosity, not with guesses and a lack of followup. For a question that presumably would only take a few minutes to ask, it's decent enough. A bad question would be one that by design gives no information (or worse, gives misleading information), and this question does better than that. Am I guaranteed to learn about their curiosity? No. In particular, candidates who are very nervous are more likely to clam up than start teasing out the details of the question. That's unfortunate, but hopefully this isn't your only interview question so there are still other opportunities for the candidate to show their stuff.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]