3 ms·

I would 100% accept that as an answer since it tells me the candidate is not good with subtext, and that's really needed to solve a lot of interesting problems.

I would 100% accept that as an answer since it tells me the candidate is not good with subtext, and that's really needed to solve a lot of interesting problems. After all, if I ask "what's your favorite food you've ever eaten", there's an unspoken implication that it's a food you remember eating. I am not in fact asking you to recall every single food you've ever eaten and choose one... - From my comment below since every reply seems to be bent on ignoring the subtext even in a theoretical discussion about picking up subtext...: Again, the subtext is "interesting example we're going to discuss". If there's one you can't discuss for any reason (doesn't even have to be you forgot: could be an NDA) then it's already excused from the discussion. An even half-decent interview is not adversarial: just like day to day work, it requires interpreting some level of useful subtext and some level of open communication - I mean, you forgot the details so it's not like it's not like you're going to start monologuing if you just touch on it: "You know, there's a real doozy from X years ago where Y but the details escape me, more recently Z happened" If there are none that you remember that are interesting: "There aren't many interesting bugs, but there was this really interesting product requirement, could we go over that?"

testTED 4y ago
But you are asking for the most interesting example, which you may remember from context, but not in any interesting or even technical detail.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Again, the subtext is "interesting example we're going to discuss". If there's one you can't discuss for any reason (doesn't even have to be you forgot: could be an NDA) then it's already excused from the discussion. An even half-decent interview is not adversarial: just like day to day work, it requires interpreting some level of useful subtext and some level of open communication - I mean, you forgot the details so it's not like it's not like you're going to start monologuing if you just touch on it: "You know, there's a real doozy from X years ago where Y but the details escape me, more recently Z happened" If there are none that you remember that are interesting: "There aren't many interesting bugs, but there was this really interesting product requirement, could we go over that?"
neilv 4y ago
> I would 100% accept that as an answer since it tells me the candidate is not good with subtext, [...] if I ask "what's your favorite food you've ever eaten", there's an unspoken implication that it's a food you remember eating. Will this filter cut many of the best engineers? Our field is full of people who pull 'engineering' out of our behinds, to various degrees. I'd assert that the engineer who doesn't assume an unspoken implication, but instead qualifies their answer, or tells you when they cannot answer, or asks for clarification... is more likely to be the one who can make a system that works, and tell you when a system will not work.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  > Will this filter cut many of the best engineers? It won't cut out a single good engineer, let alone the best. > I'd assert that the engineer who doesn't assume an unspoken implication, but instead qualifies their answer, or tells you when they cannot answer, or asks for clarification... is more likely to be the one who can make a system that works, and tell you when a system will not work. You grouped the one option that a bad engineer would take, with several that a good engineer would take. "Tells you when they cannot answer" is not what a good engineer does. They may say "I cannot answer question as-is" as a jump off for clarification. In fact in my response to your sibling comment I explain that even if there were no interesting bugs you can give an answer that isn't lying, or pulling engineering out of your ass, or dishonest. - But flat out refusing or immediately jumping to "well but I can't remember everything!!!!" is still you interpreting subtext... except you've now interpreted the most negative possible subtext. You've assumed your interviewer is asking you to recall things you can't recall and that there is no further room for discussion. A poor engineer is one that shuts completely down at the first hint of a broken invariant, rather than trying to surface that there is an invalid invariant, or learn more about the broken invariant. That kind of curiosity to go further than shutting down is what the question is meant to tease out, so you're not beating the system by deciding not to engage, instead you're sending the exact signal being looked for as something to avoid bringing into your organization.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    My organization values technical correctness.

testTED 4y ago

But you are asking for the most interesting example, which you may remember from context, but not in any interesting or even technical detail.

BoorishBears 4y ago
Again, the subtext is "interesting example we're going to discuss". If there's one you can't discuss for any reason (doesn't even have to be you forgot: could be an NDA) then it's already excused from the discussion. An even half-decent interview is not adversarial: just like day to day work, it requires interpreting some level of useful subtext and some level of open communication - I mean, you forgot the details so it's not like it's not like you're going to start monologuing if you just touch on it: "You know, there's a real doozy from X years ago where Y but the details escape me, more recently Z happened" If there are none that you remember that are interesting: "There aren't many interesting bugs, but there was this really interesting product requirement, could we go over that?"

neilv 4y ago

> I would 100% accept that as an answer since it tells me the candidate is not good with subtext, [...] if I ask "what's your favorite food you've ever eaten", there's an unspoken implication that it's a food you remember eating. Will this filter cut many of the best engineers? Our field is full of people who pull 'engineering' out of our behinds, to various degrees. I'd assert that the engineer who doesn't assume an unspoken implication, but instead qualifies their answer, or tells you when they cannot answer, or asks for clarification... is more likely to be the one who can make a system that works, and tell you when a system will not work.

BoorishBears 4y ago
> Will this filter cut many of the best engineers? It won't cut out a single good engineer, let alone the best. > I'd assert that the engineer who doesn't assume an unspoken implication, but instead qualifies their answer, or tells you when they cannot answer, or asks for clarification... is more likely to be the one who can make a system that works, and tell you when a system will not work. You grouped the one option that a bad engineer would take, with several that a good engineer would take. "Tells you when they cannot answer" is not what a good engineer does. They may say "I cannot answer question as-is" as a jump off for clarification. In fact in my response to your sibling comment I explain that even if there were no interesting bugs you can give an answer that isn't lying, or pulling engineering out of your ass, or dishonest. - But flat out refusing or immediately jumping to "well but I can't remember everything!!!!" is still you interpreting subtext... except you've now interpreted the most negative possible subtext. You've assumed your interviewer is asking you to recall things you can't recall and that there is no further room for discussion. A poor engineer is one that shuts completely down at the first hint of a broken invariant, rather than trying to surface that there is an invalid invariant, or learn more about the broken invariant. That kind of curiosity to go further than shutting down is what the question is meant to tease out, so you're not beating the system by deciding not to engage, instead you're sending the exact signal being looked for as something to avoid bringing into your organization.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  My organization values technical correctness.