3 ms·
This kind of logic can be used to rationalize anything and does not satisfy first principles thinking. Processes and tests should serve obvious purposes, otherw
by coralreef 6y ago
This kind of logic can be used to rationalize anything and does not satisfy first principles thinking. Processes and tests should serve obvious purposes, otherwise there is no metric for measuring their effectiveness.
An example of this is coming up with "how many golf balls can you fit in a bus?" riddles, in the vain attempt at "seeing how the person thinks"/"problem solving"/"creativity".
- itsdrewmiller 6y agoI'm not trying to defend it (and as a hiring manager I don't do it) - I'm just explaining the implication of Chesterton's Fence as applied to interviews. "Processes and tests should serve obvious purposes" seems very wrong to me, though - they should certainly serve useful purposes, and those purposes should be documented, but there is no real reason they need to be obvious to a layperson. Google specifically dropped those riddles because they did not find them effective, which means they have some metric for testing efficacy. They have not dropped algorithmic challenges, though. I wonder why?