4 ms·

> As someone running a technical recruitment agency, I can assure you that - statistically speaking - it is true that someone having built stuff in Clojure is m

> As someone running a technical recruitment agency, I can assure you that - statistically speaking - it is true that someone having built stuff in Clojure is more likely to be a good engineer than someone who did JQuery all the time. Would you care to share those statistics? While we're at it let's also be sure to define "good engineer."

parrellel 8y ago
He just said it was holistic.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  The commenter said "statistically speaking" to justify part of their point. I am directly challenging their assertion and requesting evidence that they have 1) actually quantified something in more than a hand wavey manner, and 2) found the (falsifiable) conclusion they stated, based on that analysis. I'm deeply skeptical. People like to throw around percentages and references to statistics to justify their biases, but I don't think the commenter has done nearly enough to motivate the conclusion that the modal Clojure developer is more likely to be a "good engineer" than the modal JavaScript developer.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Next time you have a blocked toilet, and the plumber says it's a problem with 'ABC' why don't you just tell him that's not quantifiable! and then tell him you think it's 'XYZ' that's the problem. If someone who interviews thousands of people and finds a correlation between those who have some clojure experience and quality, I believe him. For the simple reason that most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      If the plumber can explain to me in coherent reasoning why the problem is likely with 'ABC', I'm not going to challenge it. Especially if they don't handwave about statistics they almost assuredly don't have and I have no domain experience in plumbing. That analogy doesn't work. I stand by my point: using words like "statistically" and "correlation" perpetuate biases which may not have a rational basis. In this entire thread no one has explained why Clojure programmers are more likely to be "good" than JavaScript programmers (nor has "good" been defined!). I could just as plausibly state that someone tried to learn Clojure because they perceive it to be a buzzword, just as JavaScript programmers are often accused of playing buzzword bingo with web development frameworks. Empirically speaking, we haven't ended up anywhere. No matter how sure you are of this phenomenon, unless you try to make its observation more robust, it will continue to be a microcosm of the tech hiring industry. Heuristics often belie subtle biases that do not actually have a foundation in truth.
    - gaius 8y ago
      most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't. Once known as the Python Paradox http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html Nowadays I suppose it would be the Clojure Conundrum or the Haskell Happenstance
s3nnyy 8y ago
Experience looking at thousands of CVs and talking to people who are behind the CVs.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  That's not a statistic, nor is it quantifiable. I'm not taking issue with your experience, I'm taking issue with the fact that you've implied your claim has quantitative rigor to it, because I'm extremely skeptical that's the case. For what it's worth, I'm challenging you as someone who is neither a JavaScript developer nor a Clojure developer. I'm of the opinion that biases like the one the author laments are perpetuated (in part) by this leaky arguments from "statistics" that never appear.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Don't get hung up on the language. People sometimes say "statistically speaking" to mean "Based on my experience over a large number of tests". It doesn't mean "I applied a test of statistical significance to arrive at my conclusion". You're then meant to combine their stated experience with their stated credentials and your assessment of their trustworthiness to arrive at some conclusion. This imprecision may annoy you but it is a common way of speaking English so it's probably not in your interest to fight over the choice of wording.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      Sure, I understand what you're saying. But I'll continue to challenge the use of language like that. In my opinion, saying something is true "statistically speaking" is more grievous than saying something like, "I'm 99% sure." Both are artifacts of the English language, but I think the former carries much more quantification behind it, implicitly speaking. In that sense it's not just about informal use of language. This is because saying something is true "statistically" is a claim made in both scientific and casual contexts. It's mentally taxing to figure out which context is in play - someone could have come into this thread with actual statistics and said the same phrase, verbatim. Therefore (as I see it), it's realistically plausible that someone could read the original comment and come away believing recruiters have done actual statistical analysis a la TripleByte to arrive at their conclusion.

parrellel 8y ago

He just said it was holistic.

throwawaymath 8y ago
The commenter said "statistically speaking" to justify part of their point. I am directly challenging their assertion and requesting evidence that they have 1) actually quantified something in more than a hand wavey manner, and 2) found the (falsifiable) conclusion they stated, based on that analysis. I'm deeply skeptical. People like to throw around percentages and references to statistics to justify their biases, but I don't think the commenter has done nearly enough to motivate the conclusion that the modal Clojure developer is more likely to be a "good engineer" than the modal JavaScript developer.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Next time you have a blocked toilet, and the plumber says it's a problem with 'ABC' why don't you just tell him that's not quantifiable! and then tell him you think it's 'XYZ' that's the problem. If someone who interviews thousands of people and finds a correlation between those who have some clojure experience and quality, I believe him. For the simple reason that most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    If the plumber can explain to me in coherent reasoning why the problem is likely with 'ABC', I'm not going to challenge it. Especially if they don't handwave about statistics they almost assuredly don't have and I have no domain experience in plumbing. That analogy doesn't work. I stand by my point: using words like "statistically" and "correlation" perpetuate biases which may not have a rational basis. In this entire thread no one has explained why Clojure programmers are more likely to be "good" than JavaScript programmers (nor has "good" been defined!). I could just as plausibly state that someone tried to learn Clojure because they perceive it to be a buzzword, just as JavaScript programmers are often accused of playing buzzword bingo with web development frameworks. Empirically speaking, we haven't ended up anywhere. No matter how sure you are of this phenomenon, unless you try to make its observation more robust, it will continue to be a microcosm of the tech hiring industry. Heuristics often belie subtle biases that do not actually have a foundation in truth.
  - gaius 8y ago
    most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't. Once known as the Python Paradox http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html Nowadays I suppose it would be the Clojure Conundrum or the Haskell Happenstance

s3nnyy 8y ago

Experience looking at thousands of CVs and talking to people who are behind the CVs.

throwawaymath 8y ago
That's not a statistic, nor is it quantifiable. I'm not taking issue with your experience, I'm taking issue with the fact that you've implied your claim has quantitative rigor to it, because I'm extremely skeptical that's the case. For what it's worth, I'm challenging you as someone who is neither a JavaScript developer nor a Clojure developer. I'm of the opinion that biases like the one the author laments are perpetuated (in part) by this leaky arguments from "statistics" that never appear.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Don't get hung up on the language. People sometimes say "statistically speaking" to mean "Based on my experience over a large number of tests". It doesn't mean "I applied a test of statistical significance to arrive at my conclusion". You're then meant to combine their stated experience with their stated credentials and your assessment of their trustworthiness to arrive at some conclusion. This imprecision may annoy you but it is a common way of speaking English so it's probably not in your interest to fight over the choice of wording.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    Sure, I understand what you're saying. But I'll continue to challenge the use of language like that. In my opinion, saying something is true "statistically speaking" is more grievous than saying something like, "I'm 99% sure." Both are artifacts of the English language, but I think the former carries much more quantification behind it, implicitly speaking. In that sense it's not just about informal use of language. This is because saying something is true "statistically" is a claim made in both scientific and casual contexts. It's mentally taxing to figure out which context is in play - someone could have come into this thread with actual statistics and said the same phrase, verbatim. Therefore (as I see it), it's realistically plausible that someone could read the original comment and come away believing recruiters have done actual statistical analysis a la TripleByte to arrive at their conclusion.