4 ms·

You're weirdly (and inaccurately) splitting hairs here. Per the Oxford Learner's dictionary: The practice of playing tricks on somebody, or giving them very u

You're weirdly (and inaccurately) splitting hairs here. Per the Oxford Learner's dictionary: The practice of playing tricks on somebody, or giving them very unpleasant things to do, sometimes as a condition for entering a fraternity or sorority. So it can also be a "barrier to entry". The fact that Intel isn't technically a fraternity or sorority but is basically acting like one (in regard to this team's interview process) is but a small side detail here. We also have, from Wiktionary: To oppress or harass by forcing to do hard and unnecessary work. Like requiring them to discern and accommodate the interviewer's oblique sense of humor as a condition for entry, for example.

rhelz 2y ago
sigh it wasn't motivated by a wacky sense of humor, or by any sadistic tendencies. And we didn't ask dick C++ questions either. After somebody has told you they are only a 3 or a 4 out of 10 in C++, you don't have to ding them if they don't know your favorite language feature, or the latest cool thing. I've been dinged in several interviews because I didn't happen to know the 20% subset of C++ which that particular group used. Every group only uses about 20% of C++, and every group has a different subset. I think it's highly unfair to expect anybody to be a 10 out of 10 in C++. I would much rather be in an interview where the interview valued my ability to accurately determine my limitations, than if somebody asked me some esoteric, trick c++ question, and then concluded that I didn't know C++.
- racional 2y ago
  The main point is - it's a intrinsically a footgun question (a stealth behavioral question that also happens to have no rationally correct answer). Quite plainly there's no rational reason for someone to suspect that in this particular case of a standard boilerplate HR question ("How do you rate yourself?") that they should expect your secret trapdoor answer ("4 or below") should apply rather than the usual, automatic "7-9 is the only right answer"). I'll take your word that it wasn't intended as a joke. But it was intentionally oblique and slippery. All that you accomplish with a "filter" like this is to flush a lot of otherwise potentially perfectly decent candidates. And if they were to find out after the fact that this was where they "failed" your interview (after taking a whole day off work, driving down there, and going through all the other interview rituals) -- they'd be perfectly justified in applying whatever 4-letter words came to their mind in regard to that company and its vaunted "culture".

rhelz 2y ago

sigh it wasn't motivated by a wacky sense of humor, or by any sadistic tendencies. And we didn't ask dick C++ questions either. After somebody has told you they are only a 3 or a 4 out of 10 in C++, you don't have to ding them if they don't know your favorite language feature, or the latest cool thing. I've been dinged in several interviews because I didn't happen to know the 20% subset of C++ which that particular group used. Every group only uses about 20% of C++, and every group has a different subset. I think it's highly unfair to expect anybody to be a 10 out of 10 in C++. I would much rather be in an interview where the interview valued my ability to accurately determine my limitations, than if somebody asked me some esoteric, trick c++ question, and then concluded that I didn't know C++.

racional 2y ago
The main point is - it's a intrinsically a footgun question (a stealth behavioral question that also happens to have no rationally correct answer). Quite plainly there's no rational reason for someone to suspect that in this particular case of a standard boilerplate HR question ("How do you rate yourself?") that they should expect your secret trapdoor answer ("4 or below") should apply rather than the usual, automatic "7-9 is the only right answer"). I'll take your word that it wasn't intended as a joke. But it was intentionally oblique and slippery. All that you accomplish with a "filter" like this is to flush a lot of otherwise potentially perfectly decent candidates. And if they were to find out after the fact that this was where they "failed" your interview (after taking a whole day off work, driving down there, and going through all the other interview rituals) -- they'd be perfectly justified in applying whatever 4-letter words came to their mind in regard to that company and its vaunted "culture".