6 ms·

planning to hire some people soon. any recommendations on how to gauge if they are any good? I need some statistically significant tests that can weed out thos

planning to hire some people soon. any recommendations on how to gauge if they are any good? I need some statistically significant tests that can weed out those loafers. Know of any?

jey 19y ago
Dear $DEITY, don't rely on an IQ test! You need to talk to them, give them problems, see how they respond.
- keiretsu 19y ago
  yes. i will talk to them, give them problems and see how they respond. but iq test is still useful. by the way, i'm not asking them to do those full blown iq test. Just those fun-and-games "test" like http://www.lumosity.com. http://www.lumosity.com. This site really does work. I've test it out on my friends. The smart ones get high score. The dumb... err... less bright ones get average scores.
  - danielha 19y ago
    It looks like you already knew your smart friends from your dumb friends, so that test wasn't exactly necessary was it? Don't make them take IQ tests. Honestly, it doesn't reflect well on an employer, especially a small startup. You can usually tell of someone's value and experience by the work they've done, their personality just by talking to them, and their pertinent knowledge just by asking them relevant questions.
    - keiretsu 19y ago
      the gist is to check if the site is accurate
npk 19y ago
No, they don't exist. First of all, your question has no objective test function. Let's put aside that totally fundamental issue. In that case, you would need a test that distinguishes out of a small group of people, and would not have any statistical robustness. Another way to look at this problem is, if such a test exists, why doesn't everyone use it? The SAT, for example, is very well correlated with intelligence. Most companies don't care about it. The overarching question, "how do you weed out good people?" is a fundamental challenge of running business. Generally, the advice is to hire people that you personally know are good. If that doesn't work, hire the good people that other good people know, if that doesn't work, maybe you or your pitch is not that good.
- keiretsu 19y ago
  actually, i would look at SAT. Not as a major decision point, but just one small factor in the entire hiring process. IQ test would take another small factor. Personality another factor, Familiarity with the domain you are hiring for another factor. Experience another factor. and so on. This way, even if you don't score well for your SAT, your other factors may make up for it. isn't this how Google now automate their hiring process (at least in the initial stage to filter out the crap)? Categorize their current best and worst employees based on these factors. Then get the factors of the interviewees and run them on their bayesian classifier and it will indicate whether the interviewee is likely to be a good or bad employee.
  - abstractbill 19y ago
    I would think twice about working for anyone who gave me an IQ test. Not because I think I'd do badly on it, but because of what it says about that employer.
    - keiretsu 19y ago
      what does it say about the employer?
      - npk 19y ago
        That they don't really understand statistics.
        keiretsu 19y ago
        so you are inferring that there is enough statistical evidence to prove the hypothesis that a high iq person does not make for a good employee.
        npk 19y ago
        You're falling into a trap. Using the vocabulary of statistics does not mean you are thinking statistically. The classic refute, "correlation does not imply causation," applies here. I bet that the top people at top companies have high IQs, this does not mean that a high IQ person makes a top employee. I'm assuming you're hiring someone at a high level for a small company. Performing an IQ test is too much effort for not enough gain. As a result, you are performing a reverse IQ test. Intelligent people, asked to take an IQ test to join a one person startup, will view it as a waste of their time, and walk away. Go ahead, ask for SAT score. The most useful aspect of SAT score is in establishing company culture. It seems to me that you want to form a company where employess are the top grads from top universities. This is a classic, and successful model for hiring people. Asking potentital employess to take an IQ test will harm you in the end.
cwilbur 19y ago
If you can define objectively what makes a person good, you can probably, after a decade or so of research, put together a statistically significant test that will allow you to objectively determine whether a candidate is good or not. That's probably longer than your schedule allows, so you'll have to fudge it. First, you want people who are analytical and can figure things out. I went to an interview once where the interviewer had a binary clock on the table. It wasn't immediately obvious to me what it was, never having seen one. He left me in the room for a minute while he went to fetch something, and while he was out I figured out what the clock was and that it was off by about a quarter of an hour. Later on in the interview he asked if I had any idea what it was, and I told him that it was off. Apparently I passed the test. Second, you want people who know their stuff, and who, if they don't know some bit of their stuff, can take a reasonable guess or know where to find the answer. If the candidate submitted a portfolio, you can ask leading questions about the candidate's work: why did you do it this way? What were the tradeoffs if you had done it this other way? You also want to make sure the candidate does something small right there in your office: write code for a merge sort, for instance. Third, you want someone who fits with your company culture. If you're dominant and want people to follow your instructions, you don't want to hire someone who's always questioning authority. No matter who's right and who's wrong, you'll both have an unpleasant time of it. If you expect people to wear business casual clothes and be punctual, you don't want to hire someone who's the most brilliant programmer in the world but who never gets in before 10:30 am and only owns one shirt with a collar. If the candidate is a poor fit for the culture, the candidate won't perform anywhere near his capacity. In particular, the difference between a supremely productive programmer and a loafer is often the environment the person is in. Put someone who isn't punctual or a sharp dresser in a culture where he is expected to be at his desk every morning by 8:30 in a jacket and tie, and he'll turn into a loafer out of frustration within a year. No test will identify that.

planning to hire some people soon. any recommendations on how to gauge if they are any good? I need some statistically significant tests that can weed out those loafers. Know of any?

jey 19y ago

Dear $DEITY, don't rely on an IQ test! You need to talk to them, give them problems, see how they respond.

keiretsu 19y ago
yes. i will talk to them, give them problems and see how they respond. but iq test is still useful. by the way, i'm not asking them to do those full blown iq test. Just those fun-and-games "test" like http://www.lumosity.com. http://www.lumosity.com. This site really does work. I've test it out on my friends. The smart ones get high score. The dumb... err... less bright ones get average scores.
- danielha 19y ago
  It looks like you already knew your smart friends from your dumb friends, so that test wasn't exactly necessary was it? Don't make them take IQ tests. Honestly, it doesn't reflect well on an employer, especially a small startup. You can usually tell of someone's value and experience by the work they've done, their personality just by talking to them, and their pertinent knowledge just by asking them relevant questions.
  - keiretsu 19y ago
    the gist is to check if the site is accurate

npk 19y ago

No, they don't exist. First of all, your question has no objective test function. Let's put aside that totally fundamental issue. In that case, you would need a test that distinguishes out of a small group of people, and would not have any statistical robustness. Another way to look at this problem is, if such a test exists, why doesn't everyone use it? The SAT, for example, is very well correlated with intelligence. Most companies don't care about it. The overarching question, "how do you weed out good people?" is a fundamental challenge of running business. Generally, the advice is to hire people that you personally know are good. If that doesn't work, hire the good people that other good people know, if that doesn't work, maybe you or your pitch is not that good.

keiretsu 19y ago
actually, i would look at SAT. Not as a major decision point, but just one small factor in the entire hiring process. IQ test would take another small factor. Personality another factor, Familiarity with the domain you are hiring for another factor. Experience another factor. and so on. This way, even if you don't score well for your SAT, your other factors may make up for it. isn't this how Google now automate their hiring process (at least in the initial stage to filter out the crap)? Categorize their current best and worst employees based on these factors. Then get the factors of the interviewees and run them on their bayesian classifier and it will indicate whether the interviewee is likely to be a good or bad employee.
- abstractbill 19y ago
  I would think twice about working for anyone who gave me an IQ test. Not because I think I'd do badly on it, but because of what it says about that employer.
  - keiretsu 19y ago
    what does it say about the employer?
    - npk 19y ago
      That they don't really understand statistics.
      - keiretsu 19y ago
        so you are inferring that there is enough statistical evidence to prove the hypothesis that a high iq person does not make for a good employee.
        npk 19y ago
        You're falling into a trap. Using the vocabulary of statistics does not mean you are thinking statistically. The classic refute, "correlation does not imply causation," applies here. I bet that the top people at top companies have high IQs, this does not mean that a high IQ person makes a top employee. I'm assuming you're hiring someone at a high level for a small company. Performing an IQ test is too much effort for not enough gain. As a result, you are performing a reverse IQ test. Intelligent people, asked to take an IQ test to join a one person startup, will view it as a waste of their time, and walk away. Go ahead, ask for SAT score. The most useful aspect of SAT score is in establishing company culture. It seems to me that you want to form a company where employess are the top grads from top universities. This is a classic, and successful model for hiring people. Asking potentital employess to take an IQ test will harm you in the end.

cwilbur 19y ago

If you can define objectively what makes a person good, you can probably, after a decade or so of research, put together a statistically significant test that will allow you to objectively determine whether a candidate is good or not. That's probably longer than your schedule allows, so you'll have to fudge it. First, you want people who are analytical and can figure things out. I went to an interview once where the interviewer had a binary clock on the table. It wasn't immediately obvious to me what it was, never having seen one. He left me in the room for a minute while he went to fetch something, and while he was out I figured out what the clock was and that it was off by about a quarter of an hour. Later on in the interview he asked if I had any idea what it was, and I told him that it was off. Apparently I passed the test. Second, you want people who know their stuff, and who, if they don't know some bit of their stuff, can take a reasonable guess or know where to find the answer. If the candidate submitted a portfolio, you can ask leading questions about the candidate's work: why did you do it this way? What were the tradeoffs if you had done it this other way? You also want to make sure the candidate does something small right there in your office: write code for a merge sort, for instance. Third, you want someone who fits with your company culture. If you're dominant and want people to follow your instructions, you don't want to hire someone who's always questioning authority. No matter who's right and who's wrong, you'll both have an unpleasant time of it. If you expect people to wear business casual clothes and be punctual, you don't want to hire someone who's the most brilliant programmer in the world but who never gets in before 10:30 am and only owns one shirt with a collar. If the candidate is a poor fit for the culture, the candidate won't perform anywhere near his capacity. In particular, the difference between a supremely productive programmer and a loafer is often the environment the person is in. Put someone who isn't punctual or a sharp dresser in a culture where he is expected to be at his desk every morning by 8:30 in a jacket and tie, and he'll turn into a loafer out of frustration within a year. No test will identify that.