4 ms·
You can tell some of these things from an interview. For example, when I interview, I never pretend to agree with something the interviewer says. If the inter
by yetanotherphd 13y ago
You can tell some of these things from an interview. For example, when I interview, I never pretend to agree with something the interviewer says. If the interviewer doesn't agree that my algorithm is O(N), I will keep arguing that it is, unless we decide to move on. I can be quite convincing, so I have even convinced interviewers of things that are wrong during interviews.
This approach demonstrates an ability to collaborate. If a person can't debate a straightforward problem without either backing down immediately, or getting angry or defensive, how will they be able to deal with protracted disputes about the design of complex projects?
- siphor 13y agoThis sounds highly unproductive in the high stress situation that the interviewee is in. Hence the 'high false negatives' I guess.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoWorking in a big company is inherently "high stress". Dealing with an interviewer isn't scarier than dealing with someone way higher than you in the reporting chain.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoThis does not match my experience. Interviews can sometimes make me nervous, but I have a history of having zero problem defending an opinion against someone 7 or 8 layers above me.
- 001sky 13y agoWorking in a big company is inherently "high stress" The NFL is high stress, but there are home games and away games. And playing local rivals you know well, and distant teams you know less well. Much BigCo work is done "on the inside", amid familiar faces; or with cultural reference points you have in common {etc}. Interviewing with a new company can be a hit-or-miss affair because it requirese the establishment of common ground. That's in part why many people short-list resume's with applicants who went to the same or similar schools, or who have worked with common colleagues/products/platforms etc. It all becaus the over-head to process and place context around the applicant is much cheaper (efficient) in the sense of less mantally taxing for the Inverviewer (and if lucky, the interviewee). So in short, that's why new contexts themselves can be more stressful than what might otherwise appear to be "higher" stress from the outside.
- kevingadd 13y agoThe problem with this approach is most interviewers are not willing to be convinced that they are wrong. I've had a high-level engineer from Apple argue fervently in an interview that the Boyer-Moore string search algorithm 'can't possibly work' and a high-level engineer from Google argue fervently that linked lists are superior to arrays (despite me clearly explaining the problems with pointer-chasing and locality). Some interviewers just come in with their own preconceptions and outdated/incomplete information, and I very rarely encounter interviewers that actually appreciate learning something new from a candidate. They do exist, but in practice you're better off just shutting up and waiting for them to move on. Pretending to agree doesn't help anyone, of course.
- alok-g 13y agoI had same experience with Apple. An interviewer insisted that frequency can never be negative. (He was clueless about something called the Fourier transform where the integral for frequency runs from -infinity to +infinity.)
- interpol_p 13y ago> linked lists are superior to arrays How is this even a useful comparison? Wouldn't it entirely depend on context? They are two different data structures and are both useful. Arguing that one is superior seems nonsensical.
- grey-area 13y agoIt was probably in response to a question about a specific problem, in which you could argue one was better than the other.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoPerhaps, but in most cases the person simply cannot follow your reasoning. That might not be your fault. The interviewer might not be as smart as you, or might not have a very theoretical background. I've never heard of the Boyer-Moore string algorithm, so when presented with it for the first time I might not understand it.