4 ms·
The author believes that we should screen for IQ directly and that long technical interviews are second-rate proxy for that. The piece is meant to get the reade
by jfarmer 6y ago
The author believes that we should screen for IQ directly and that long technical interviews are second-rate proxy for that. The piece is meant to get the reader to buy into a set of "natural" or "obvious" priorities and then show how absurd most interviews are in light of those priorities.
I suspect the author is looking for a reaction like: "Wait, if I agree this is absurd, then why _don't_ we just administer IQ tests and be done with it?"
Some of the author's tweets about identifying talent, IQ, and temperament:
· https://share.getcloudapp.com/YEuyyKbE https://share.getcloudapp.com/YEuyyKbE
· https://share.getcloudapp.com/z8uYY5gZ https://share.getcloudapp.com/z8uYY5gZ
· https://share.getcloudapp.com/7Ku882yG https://share.getcloudapp.com/7Ku882yG
· https://share.getcloudapp.com/E0urr8B5 https://share.getcloudapp.com/E0urr8B5
- ALittleLight 6y agoIt's not obvious to me that testing IQ is a bad thing. Maybe it's not a good indicator for job performance, but that seems like something you'd need to discover empirically.