3 ms·

"It's only unfalsifiable if you ignore a person's previous experience and accomplishments, refusing to acknowledge anything other than your own interview as an

"It's only unfalsifiable if you ignore a person's previous experience and accomplishments, refusing to acknowledge anything other than your own interview as an accurate gauge of the person's skills." Which is often the right thing to do unless you have very specific knowledge of that experience e.g. a referral, because so many people flat out lie about their experience and accomplishments. If you can't directly verify it, the accuracy is so low it's best ignored. As for your experience, I'm glad to hear you're now happily self employed (so am I!). How are you proving your skills to customers, if you can't handle job interviews? Or are you making a product? "Have you considered that you might not have a full understanding and appreciation for human psychology and the wide variance among humans?" I have an average such understanding, having lived an average life. But the problem remains: someone who claims to be able to do a job fine but can't demonstrate that capability when asked, is from an employer's perspective best avoided. That isn't a flaw in the interviewing process, that's the point of it! The reasons why someone can't demonstrate it are irrelevant because there's no better alternative available, and anyway, someone who can't handle the pressure of a job interview is very likely to crack in other situations. You claim it's not true and there's something psychologically unique about interviewing, but, I don't really believe this and clearly neither do other people doing hiring.

lapcat 4y ago
> Which is often the right thing to do unless you have very specific knowledge of that experience e.g. a referral You're missing the forest for the trees. This is not a job interview, it's just the two of us talking, and I'm stating that many people who are not stage performers experience "stage fright" in an audition-style interview, which severely but only temporarily hinders their performance. If you acknowledge this fact, then you have to start to wonder whether audition-style interviews are accurately measuring skill level, or whether they're mainly measuring anxiety. And you may have to reevaluate whether a flubbed interview indicates that a candidate "can't code" and is a "faker", as opposed to just freezing from stage fright. This is not even to claim that there are zero liars out there. But you have to wonder about the percentage of liars, if there are alternative explanations for poor interview performance. The level of paranoia in hiring programmers seems totally absurd to me. > How are you proving your skills to customers I am making a product, as well as contracting sometimes. But nobody wants to test me. They trust my experience and aren't ultra-paranoid that I might be a faker who can't code. > if you can't handle job interviews This is not accurate. I can handle job interviews. I'm not good at auditions. An audition is a very specific kind of interview, and rather perverse for hiring people who mainly work sitting by themselves. > That isn't a flaw in the interviewing process, that's the point of it! Disagreed. It seems that coders tend not to recognize how coding test interviews are not the norm in the world for interviews. They're quite unusual. Most people don't have to audition for a job. An interview is a two-way street: both the interviewer and interviewee are trying to determine whether the job is right for them, and whether they want to work together. A test is very one-sided.
- sitkack 4y ago
  Thanks for being so patient.

lapcat 4y ago

> Which is often the right thing to do unless you have very specific knowledge of that experience e.g. a referral You're missing the forest for the trees. This is not a job interview, it's just the two of us talking, and I'm stating that many people who are not stage performers experience "stage fright" in an audition-style interview, which severely but only temporarily hinders their performance. If you acknowledge this fact, then you have to start to wonder whether audition-style interviews are accurately measuring skill level, or whether they're mainly measuring anxiety. And you may have to reevaluate whether a flubbed interview indicates that a candidate "can't code" and is a "faker", as opposed to just freezing from stage fright. This is not even to claim that there are zero liars out there. But you have to wonder about the percentage of liars, if there are alternative explanations for poor interview performance. The level of paranoia in hiring programmers seems totally absurd to me. > How are you proving your skills to customers I am making a product, as well as contracting sometimes. But nobody wants to test me. They trust my experience and aren't ultra-paranoid that I might be a faker who can't code. > if you can't handle job interviews This is not accurate. I can handle job interviews. I'm not good at auditions. An audition is a very specific kind of interview, and rather perverse for hiring people who mainly work sitting by themselves. > That isn't a flaw in the interviewing process, that's the point of it! Disagreed. It seems that coders tend not to recognize how coding test interviews are not the norm in the world for interviews. They're quite unusual. Most people don't have to audition for a job. An interview is a two-way street: both the interviewer and interviewee are trying to determine whether the job is right for them, and whether they want to work together. A test is very one-sided.

sitkack 4y ago
Thanks for being so patient.