5 ms·

I'm not sure. When I was hiring for good C++ game engine programmers, our recruitment test had people program in a language they'd never seen before. Because I

by sago 12y ago

I'm not sure. When I was hiring for good C++ game engine programmers, our recruitment test had people program in a language they'd never seen before. Because I believed that the imminent capability of a person in C++ wasn't as good a determiner of their long term value as their potential capability, which I thought was more likely correlated to flexibility, learning speed, calmness under difficult conditions, clarity of reasoning. So I think this already happens in hiring. What I'm describing is one end of a continuum. My point is that it isn't clear to me that day 1 competence is a good optimisation strategy. And if I optimize for day 10 competence, then why not day 100, 500, and so on? There's got to be a tipping point somewhere, but it isn't obvious where.

kbenson 12y ago
Combined response. Re: hiring programmers, I think we attempt to mostly hire for imminent capability, but we aren't always very good at it in some industries. When referring to someone that knows one computer language learning another one, I don't even really consider that potential capability in the same respect to what we've been discussing. That's so far past the major effects of privilege, as we've been discussing them, that I think it's nearly inconsequential. Programming is a very high level skill in our current society, I view privilege having the most influence here in affecting whether the person learns the discipline at all, not whether they can abstract from one category to another within it. With respect to our earlier discussion, I would view it more as choosing to hire someone that knows how to program, or someone that seems bright but does not know how to program and hoping they will develop some aptitude for it at a later date based on their general intelligence. I think there are a lot of assumptions and waiting pitfalls in that. Can you say what systemic biases you think have been driven out so far by doing this? I'm curious what you're thinking about. I'd certainly say that there have been some improvements. But 'quite well' seems overly optimistic to me. I think education, health and income are the big winners there, and I also think those are the biggest differentiators that privilege provided prior to that. Sure, income may not initially seem like a big win, but compared to pre-minimum wage and labor law America, I think the change is massive. Not having to go to work at 10 because your family needs the money to not starve is quite a contrast to the current situation. Not having to devote your life to god in a convent or monastery to get a good education without spending money. Civil rights. Suffrage. That's not to say these are solved problems, and the privilege afforded in some of these cases doesn't still provide a very large benefit, but there have been major improvements, and I attribute the climate that allowed them to the rapidly improving economic situation of the average person, and I attribute that to the massive speed of innovation, which I think was allowed by attempting to maximize the effectiveness of the resources we have available at the specific time.
- sago 12y ago
  > I would view it more as choosing to hire someone that knows how to program, or someone that seems bright but does not know how to program and hoping they will develop some aptitude for it at a later date Do you really think that what is being advocated here is employing people who don't know how to program at all for programming jobs? I don't get that sense at all. I got the sense it is more, do you employ someone who has had advantages and has top-notch qualifications and day 1 skills, or someone who has struggled with fewer advantages, but still has pretty good (though not as good) qualifications and skills. At the point where someone suggests hiring people with fine arts degrees to write physics simulation code, because diversity, I agree the plot has been completely lost. But I think that is a bit of a strawman. And, because I haven't said this for a while, I'm kindof trying to play the economic argument here, because that is your focus. I'm not conceding my feeling that economic arguments can't be trumped by moral ones. Thanks for the second half of that response. Your examples feel wrong to me. But I can't say why. Which is often a sign that I'm relying on bias rather than reason. I'll muse on it. Good conversation, overall, thanks.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    Do you really think that what is being advocated here is employing people who don't know how to program at all for programming jobs? I don't get that sense at all. I think we are far beyond the original scope of the article. When the discussion is about hiring people based on their potential because of how they would have been able to develop if privilege was normalized, then yes, I think that and equivalents is what it boils down to, because I don't think privilege does all that much after a person has identified their career and interests. I think it primarily affects the finding of that career and interest, through exposure and training. At the point where someone suggests hiring people with fine arts degrees to write physics simulation code, because diversity, I agree the plot has been completely lost. A bit more extreme than what I meant to imply. I guess it really comes down to what hiring based on potential really means. And, because I haven't said this for a while, I'm kindof trying to play the economic argument here, because that is your focus. I'm not conceding my feeling that economic arguments can't be trumped by moral ones. I've been trying to field the idea that the economic argument is the moral one. Or at least it may be, and I think it can't be immediately discounted as not being the moral one. Good conversation, overall, thanks. To you as well. I found it really productive, it gave me a lot to think about.

by sago 12y ago

kbenson 12y ago

Combined response. Re: hiring programmers, I think we attempt to mostly hire for imminent capability, but we aren't always very good at it in some industries. When referring to someone that knows one computer language learning another one, I don't even really consider that potential capability in the same respect to what we've been discussing. That's so far past the major effects of privilege, as we've been discussing them, that I think it's nearly inconsequential. Programming is a very high level skill in our current society, I view privilege having the most influence here in affecting whether the person learns the discipline at all, not whether they can abstract from one category to another within it. With respect to our earlier discussion, I would view it more as choosing to hire someone that knows how to program, or someone that seems bright but does not know how to program and hoping they will develop some aptitude for it at a later date based on their general intelligence. I think there are a lot of assumptions and waiting pitfalls in that. Can you say what systemic biases you think have been driven out so far by doing this? I'm curious what you're thinking about. I'd certainly say that there have been some improvements. But 'quite well' seems overly optimistic to me. I think education, health and income are the big winners there, and I also think those are the biggest differentiators that privilege provided prior to that. Sure, income may not initially seem like a big win, but compared to pre-minimum wage and labor law America, I think the change is massive. Not having to go to work at 10 because your family needs the money to not starve is quite a contrast to the current situation. Not having to devote your life to god in a convent or monastery to get a good education without spending money. Civil rights. Suffrage. That's not to say these are solved problems, and the privilege afforded in some of these cases doesn't still provide a very large benefit, but there have been major improvements, and I attribute the climate that allowed them to the rapidly improving economic situation of the average person, and I attribute that to the massive speed of innovation, which I think was allowed by attempting to maximize the effectiveness of the resources we have available at the specific time.

sago 12y ago
> I would view it more as choosing to hire someone that knows how to program, or someone that seems bright but does not know how to program and hoping they will develop some aptitude for it at a later date Do you really think that what is being advocated here is employing people who don't know how to program at all for programming jobs? I don't get that sense at all. I got the sense it is more, do you employ someone who has had advantages and has top-notch qualifications and day 1 skills, or someone who has struggled with fewer advantages, but still has pretty good (though not as good) qualifications and skills. At the point where someone suggests hiring people with fine arts degrees to write physics simulation code, because diversity, I agree the plot has been completely lost. But I think that is a bit of a strawman. And, because I haven't said this for a while, I'm kindof trying to play the economic argument here, because that is your focus. I'm not conceding my feeling that economic arguments can't be trumped by moral ones. Thanks for the second half of that response. Your examples feel wrong to me. But I can't say why. Which is often a sign that I'm relying on bias rather than reason. I'll muse on it. Good conversation, overall, thanks.
- kbenson 12y ago
  Do you really think that what is being advocated here is employing people who don't know how to program at all for programming jobs? I don't get that sense at all. I think we are far beyond the original scope of the article. When the discussion is about hiring people based on their potential because of how they would have been able to develop if privilege was normalized, then yes, I think that and equivalents is what it boils down to, because I don't think privilege does all that much after a person has identified their career and interests. I think it primarily affects the finding of that career and interest, through exposure and training. At the point where someone suggests hiring people with fine arts degrees to write physics simulation code, because diversity, I agree the plot has been completely lost. A bit more extreme than what I meant to imply. I guess it really comes down to what hiring based on potential really means. And, because I haven't said this for a while, I'm kindof trying to play the economic argument here, because that is your focus. I'm not conceding my feeling that economic arguments can't be trumped by moral ones. I've been trying to field the idea that the economic argument is the moral one. Or at least it may be, and I think it can't be immediately discounted as not being the moral one. Good conversation, overall, thanks. To you as well. I found it really productive, it gave me a lot to think about.