4 ms·

I feel the exact opposite. At least they are measuring something vaguely objectively. Interviewing with most potential employers, at least in software, is like

I feel the exact opposite. At least they are measuring something vaguely objectively. Interviewing with most potential employers, at least in software, is like when children guess at picking players for sports teams while wearing a blindfold. Everything always seems to come down to biases applied non uniformly. Changing jobs is a big life investment. I would prefer it not be a blind date with one-way conversations from somebody likely abusive and neglectful looking for a surf to abuse. If the potential employer is instead interested in potential they are sending a signal they are willing to invest in you. Myers Briggs gets a lot of hate due to low precision but it’s a cheap and fast assessment. There are much better assessments of personality but they take more time and are more invasive.

cosmotic 4y ago
What if they were using astrology? Would that be better than nothing? I think it would be worse than nothing because it demonstrates the aren't competent enough to know when they fell for a scam.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  > What if they were using astrology? Then it would be guessing just the same as using no metric at all. This is only worse if the candidate is so naive as to believe they are of superior consideration than the value of a simple measure.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    Do we actually have any evidence that “when in the year you were born in” has worse statistical relevance than the admittedly weak relevance of personality tests? If not (and I’ve not seen it) then the candidate is just stating a preference for not working with companies that are lazy intellectually. That’s not naive that’s sensible.
    - throwaway0asd 4y ago
      Yes, Bridgewater.
      - kasey_junk 4y ago
        So far as I know Bridgewater has never published numbers on their traders based on the part of the year they were born in. Do you have a citation?
  - cosmotic 4y ago
    It wouldn't be exactly the same. The difference is lazy AND ignorant instead of just lazy.
Barrin92 4y ago
"It doesn't work and is junk science, but at least it doesn't work for everyone equally" is an interesting methodology. I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. I mean if objectivity is the only criterion you simply may want to roll a set of dice for the applicants because those are cheaper than Myers-Briggs consultants. the attitude of replacing useful human judgements with useless metrics in the name of eliminating bias is one of the worst trends in modern hiring.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  > I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. That something real is called discrimination.
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    Discrimination is the entire point of the hiring process. Why else are you sorting people into Myers-Briggs categories? Are you sending nobody home? What we're arguing about isn't whether you're discriminating but what tool you're using to discriminate. Is craniometry not discriminatory just because it's objective? the relevant question is whether astrology for nerds is better than human judgement just because the former is perceived as impersonal.
    - throwaway0asd 4y ago
      How do you prove human intuition is a better qualifier?

cosmotic 4y ago

What if they were using astrology? Would that be better than nothing? I think it would be worse than nothing because it demonstrates the aren't competent enough to know when they fell for a scam.

throwaway0asd 4y ago
> What if they were using astrology? Then it would be guessing just the same as using no metric at all. This is only worse if the candidate is so naive as to believe they are of superior consideration than the value of a simple measure.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Do we actually have any evidence that “when in the year you were born in” has worse statistical relevance than the admittedly weak relevance of personality tests? If not (and I’ve not seen it) then the candidate is just stating a preference for not working with companies that are lazy intellectually. That’s not naive that’s sensible.
  - throwaway0asd 4y ago
    Yes, Bridgewater.
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      So far as I know Bridgewater has never published numbers on their traders based on the part of the year they were born in. Do you have a citation?
- cosmotic 4y ago
  It wouldn't be exactly the same. The difference is lazy AND ignorant instead of just lazy.

Barrin92 4y ago

"It doesn't work and is junk science, but at least it doesn't work for everyone equally" is an interesting methodology. I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. I mean if objectivity is the only criterion you simply may want to roll a set of dice for the applicants because those are cheaper than Myers-Briggs consultants. the attitude of replacing useful human judgements with useless metrics in the name of eliminating bias is one of the worst trends in modern hiring.

throwaway0asd 4y ago
> I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. That something real is called discrimination.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  Discrimination is the entire point of the hiring process. Why else are you sorting people into Myers-Briggs categories? Are you sending nobody home? What we're arguing about isn't whether you're discriminating but what tool you're using to discriminate. Is craniometry not discriminatory just because it's objective? the relevant question is whether astrology for nerds is better than human judgement just because the former is perceived as impersonal.
  - throwaway0asd 4y ago
    How do you prove human intuition is a better qualifier?