5 ms·

I usually really like what Slava writes, but I didn't like this one at all. Just a few things I disagree with: - 'Talent', as it is defined in the article, is

I usually really like what Slava writes, but I didn't like this one at all. Just a few things I disagree with: - 'Talent', as it is defined in the article, is not the most important factor in most jobs (though granted he writes that this article doesn't apply to most jobs) - IQ is not a good measure for intelligence. Intelligence is way too diverse to be broken down into a linear scale, even when it comes to just engineering or 'talent', as he calls it here. - Personality is way more important than he makes it out to be. It can't just be broken down into 3-5 factors. This isn't a scientific process. In my experience, this is where most of the value of personal interviews is. - I found the last section disgusting to read. He's advocating for manipulating the candidate into accepting the job by asking successively harder questions, even though you've already made up your mind. What a great start to your business relationship. And then justifies this by saying that 'people want to suffer'. This is almost like negging in romantic relationships. Just awful. Slava, if you're reading this, I'm disappointed. I respected you for your experience and your writing but this is making me quite sad. EDIT: As lots of people have written here in the comments: On a second read, I agree this could indeed be satire. If so, well played Slava, well played! I don't think so though, unfortunately. This is what the 'everything is measurable and science has all the answers' mentality brings, if taken to an extreme. These days, science, data-driven approaches and 'measure everything' are more religion than anything else. Even if this article is satire, I think there's enough people out there that think this way.

snowisgone 6y ago
Are you surprised given how the space he's in trains him to put out material like this (and actually think like this)?
neilv 6y ago
> He's advocating for manipulating the candidate into accepting the job by asking successively harder questions, even though you've already made up your mind. What a great start to your business relationship. And then justifies this by saying that 'people want to suffer'. This is almost like negging in romantic relationships. And hazing. Some form of the hazing seems very common for dotcom hiring right now, whether or not (as the article alludes at the start) the people who are mimicking it from elsewhere known the reasons or effects.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dmoy 6y ago
I will ask successively harder and harder questions in an interview, time permitting. However I do it only so that I can potentially give a hire recommendation for a higher level with tens+ thousands/yr more compensation. Also because I'm always just one of 6+ interviewers, and a committee of 6+ completely separate people makes the actual decision, I can't even know if the person is being hired anyways.
- dilyevsky 6y ago
  The part about a candidate with multiple offers rejecting ones that felt “too easy” is not entirely unfounded. One of the things I’m personally interested in is professional growth so similar thoughts have definitely crossed my mind as a candidate
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
woohoojoo 6y ago
>- Personality is way more important than he makes it out to be. It can't just be broken down into 3-5 factors. This isn't a scientific process. Eh, some would argue the opposite... (Probably hundreds or even thousands of psychologists & academic professors of psychology) "In psychological trait theory, the Big Five personality traits, also known as the five-factor model (FFM) and the OCEAN model, is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits,[1] developed from the 1980s onwards." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits "Abstract We demonstrate that Big-Five personality traits are stable for working-age adults over a four-year period." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176511004666 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01651... "The five-dimensional structure was robust across major regions of the world. Trait levels were related in predictable ways to self-esteem, sociosexuality, and national personality profiles." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022106297299 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002202210629729... "Personality was related to career success controlling for general mental ability and, though adulthood measures of the Big Five traits were more strongly related to career success than were childhood measures, both contributed unique variance in explaining career success." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570....
- learc83 6y ago
  There's intense critique of the Big Five model within psychology, and with what we've learned about the reproducibility of psychology studies , I'd be shocked if those studies you linked were reproducible.
valvar 6y ago
>IQ is not a good measure for intelligence. Intelligence is way too diverse to be broken down into a linear scale, even when it comes to just engineering or 'talent', as he calls it here. Oh, you have a better way to measure g?
- mcguire 6y ago
  g is what you get when you only look for a single, linear scale.
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    The exact opposite, actually, it was discovered as a concept when people tried looking for multiple scales.
- cloogshicer 6y ago
  Maybe measurement is not the right approach here in the first place. Who says that everything can (or should) be measured?
mushbino 6y ago
As someone who has worked with engineers all day every day for the past 15 years, one thing that I don't see "measured" is how well that engineer can work cross functionality. I consistently see great results when cross functional collaboration is high and poor to catastrophic results when engineers are empowered to do everything themselves or where the org structure maintains engineering as an island unto itself.
- fractionalhare 6y ago
  > one thing that I don't see "measured" is how well that engineer can work cross functionality. Large tech companies will measure for this. From personal experience I know that Google, Facebook and Netflix all test for cross functional leadership at the senior+ level. By the time you're interviewing for senior or higher roles, only two of the six interviews are actually about coding at these companies. The rest are behavioral and system design, with specific questions used to calibrate how hands on you are and how much you're used to working with many teams effectively in a large org.
SamReidHughes 6y ago
> Intelligence is way too diverse to be broken down into a linear scale The article is written with this in mind, that's why there's multiple tests (coding and written!) for both "talent" and "judgement." Intelligence isn't really very diverse, when you need people who are s-m-a-r-t smart. That means you need smart people, not half-smart differently-abled people.
coffeemug 6y ago
Of course I'm reading this!

snowisgone 6y ago

Are you surprised given how the space he's in trains him to put out material like this (and actually think like this)?

neilv 6y ago

> He's advocating for manipulating the candidate into accepting the job by asking successively harder questions, even though you've already made up your mind. What a great start to your business relationship. And then justifies this by saying that 'people want to suffer'. This is almost like negging in romantic relationships. And hazing. Some form of the hazing seems very common for dotcom hiring right now, whether or not (as the article alludes at the start) the people who are mimicking it from elsewhere known the reasons or effects.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dmoy 6y ago

I will ask successively harder and harder questions in an interview, time permitting. However I do it only so that I can potentially give a hire recommendation for a higher level with tens+ thousands/yr more compensation. Also because I'm always just one of 6+ interviewers, and a committee of 6+ completely separate people makes the actual decision, I can't even know if the person is being hired anyways.

dilyevsky 6y ago
The part about a candidate with multiple offers rejecting ones that felt “too easy” is not entirely unfounded. One of the things I’m personally interested in is professional growth so similar thoughts have definitely crossed my mind as a candidate

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

woohoojoo 6y ago

>- Personality is way more important than he makes it out to be. It can't just be broken down into 3-5 factors. This isn't a scientific process. Eh, some would argue the opposite... (Probably hundreds or even thousands of psychologists & academic professors of psychology) "In psychological trait theory, the Big Five personality traits, also known as the five-factor model (FFM) and the OCEAN model, is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits,[1] developed from the 1980s onwards." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits "Abstract We demonstrate that Big-Five personality traits are stable for working-age adults over a four-year period." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176511004666 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01651... "The five-dimensional structure was robust across major regions of the world. Trait levels were related in predictable ways to self-esteem, sociosexuality, and national personality profiles." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022106297299 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002202210629729... "Personality was related to career success controlling for general mental ability and, though adulthood measures of the Big Five traits were more strongly related to career success than were childhood measures, both contributed unique variance in explaining career success." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570....

learc83 6y ago
There's intense critique of the Big Five model within psychology, and with what we've learned about the reproducibility of psychology studies , I'd be shocked if those studies you linked were reproducible.

valvar 6y ago

>IQ is not a good measure for intelligence. Intelligence is way too diverse to be broken down into a linear scale, even when it comes to just engineering or 'talent', as he calls it here. Oh, you have a better way to measure g?

mcguire 6y ago
g is what you get when you only look for a single, linear scale.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  The exact opposite, actually, it was discovered as a concept when people tried looking for multiple scales.
cloogshicer 6y ago
Maybe measurement is not the right approach here in the first place. Who says that everything can (or should) be measured?

mushbino 6y ago

As someone who has worked with engineers all day every day for the past 15 years, one thing that I don't see "measured" is how well that engineer can work cross functionality. I consistently see great results when cross functional collaboration is high and poor to catastrophic results when engineers are empowered to do everything themselves or where the org structure maintains engineering as an island unto itself.

fractionalhare 6y ago
> one thing that I don't see "measured" is how well that engineer can work cross functionality. Large tech companies will measure for this. From personal experience I know that Google, Facebook and Netflix all test for cross functional leadership at the senior+ level. By the time you're interviewing for senior or higher roles, only two of the six interviews are actually about coding at these companies. The rest are behavioral and system design, with specific questions used to calibrate how hands on you are and how much you're used to working with many teams effectively in a large org.

SamReidHughes 6y ago

> Intelligence is way too diverse to be broken down into a linear scale The article is written with this in mind, that's why there's multiple tests (coding and written!) for both "talent" and "judgement." Intelligence isn't really very diverse, when you need people who are s-m-a-r-t smart. That means you need smart people, not half-smart differently-abled people.

coffeemug 6y ago

Of course I'm reading this!