6 ms·

This is the first comment from tptacek that I disagree with; strongly. I know this HN audience loves its scientific approach to everything and everyone in life,

by smtddr 12y ago

This is the first comment from tptacek that I disagree with; strongly. I know this HN audience loves its scientific approach to everything and everyone in life, but I actually don't. I'll probably never accept applying science to dealing with people simply because algorithms would never have enough inputs to describe a person accurately. I much prefer the "organic" discussion with people to get an idea of how they think and feel. If a company gave me a job offer without me getting a good idea of the thoughts & feelings of my coworkers, or me having doubts that they know mine, I probably wouldn't take the job. At my current gig I'm usually one of the culture-fit interviewers. FWIW, in my most recent performance-review I was described as having high "EQ". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/are-you-emotionally-intel_n_4371920.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/are-you-emotionally... I've never heard that term before, but having read about it I think it fits me perfectly.

tptacek 12y ago
What part of that comment do you disagree with? It recommends a lot of different things.
- smtddr 12y ago
  In general, I just don't like trying to describe people with science. That's a personal philosophy that I don't think I can really convince anyone else of if they don't already believe it. But specifically: >> Do not allow team members to contribute feedback based on "culture fit". I'm aware of how culture fit can lead to unfair discrimination, but throwing it out entirely I think is like "throwing the baby out with the bath water." I think culture-fit is important to have the right "vibe" in the office. Unfortunately, I know that "vibe preservation" can lead to aforementioned discrimination very easily but I also believe the "vibe" does exist and damaging it results in problems. >> Try to eliminate phone interviews entirely. They don't add value, but do amplify noise. If phone-interviews were 100% gone, then we'd need 2 in-person interviews. The first interview asking pretty much the same questions that could have been done over the phone. I think phone-interviews help screen out obvious bad-fits early on without investing too much time. >> Never interview a candidate with more than one interviewer From my own experience I've seen 2 interviewers describe a candidate almost completely opposite from each other and I found it incredibly fascinating to see how different 2 people witness the exact same event at the same time. Everyone being aware of those differences and the rest of the team knowing how the interviewers think day-to-day, I think gives balance. >> Have lunch with candidates if you like, but don't make lunch a Q&A with the candidate. What would you talk about at lunch if not Q&A? Or are we assuming that you specifically mean prohibit question to the candidate but expecting questions _from_ the candidate. >> Script your interviews. While I do think it's important to have some kind of benchmark sequence of questions, I think more is learned about the candidate(and I learn more about my potential new coworkers) when it feels more like an organic conversation rather than those scripted conversations I endure when calling AT&T about my malfunctioning LAN line. Or maybe you don't mean scripted in that strict of a form. Incidentally, do you have some kind of script notifying you when you're mentioned on HN? Sometimes it feels that way. You kinda "non-organically" appear when someone mentions you. :-P
  - danielweber 12y ago
    I think culture-fit is important to have the right "vibe" in the office What kind of "vibe" are we looking for? Are people writing unit tests? Are they respectful to each other? Is devops easily reproducible?
    - smtddr 12y ago
      Too hard for me to define. Like not hiring because the candidate didn't have "passion". I realize how frustrating & annoying it is to be disqualified based on such of an ambiguous intangible concept - it borderlines on nonsensical, but I strongly believe it exists.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Do you also believe that you can reliably assess it in a face to face interview with a candidate? How sure are you that you're not just assessing a candidate's ability to be confident and unflappable in a job interview? Have you ever had the experience of hiring someone who did amazingly well in their interview and turned out to be a total zero on your dev team? I'm very wary of subjective signals I get from interviews.
        smtddr 12y ago
        >>Do you also believe that you can reliably assess it in a face to face interview with a candidate? Nope, I don't. I absolutely believe there is a significant margin of error there but I also believe that, as human beings, we have to accept that we cannot be standardized plug-n-play hardware rather than try and come up with an algorithm that we rely on to tell us if a person is a good candidate or not. FWIW, I'm also against standardized testing in schools. You just end up people who are groomed specifically for those tests and in general the word "standardized" is kinda opposite of "diversity". >>How sure are you that you're not just assessing a candidate's ability to be confident and unflappable in a job interview? For dev jobs, at least you have background checks on past employment and/or education, a few coding tests and discussions around them to at least know this person isn't a totally 100% Grade-A Fraud. But indeed it is possible to end up with someone who just guessed right & prepared before hand for your questions then totally falls on their face the first month on the job. >>Have you ever had the experience of hiring someone who did amazingly well in their interview and turned out to be a total zero on your dev team? I'm very wary of subjective signals I get from interviews. I've seen this happen in at&t, more than once, where standardized'ish interviews were easy to guess and some people just knew exactly what to say and nobody applied any fraud-detection. But I admit I've also seen this happen in heavy culture-fit oriented interviews that still manage to leave something out. e.g., maybe the candidate actually gets frustrated easily and becomes very difficult to work with. If they did well in the interview then you never got to see what happens when they don't do well. Personally, I think this is just the chance we have to take as a society. If we really try hard to apply algos to humans I think we'll end up with a bunch of problems. I can see people grooming themselves specifically for those algos and I just don't think that's healthy for standardized interviews or standardized tests in schools. But indeed, this is all touchy-feeling-fuzzy-intangible-indefensible stuff. There's a movie called Gattaca: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ That kinda talks about this and it turns out people get different impressions from this movie. Some people think what the main character did was unjustified fraud and some people think it's society that treated him unfairly because an algorithm said he was unfit for the role.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I'll say that getting rid of phone interviews is wrong, unless you are keeping "phone screens" which are just making sure that the person isn't wildly out-of-place for the job. I've wasted time going to interviews when a phone interview would have revealed to both sides that it wasn't the right job for me.
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    I think in general, you should advocate a "get a cup of coffee" approach to the first technical contact point in the hiring pipeline. The focus should be on describing the process, describing the job, doing a sales job on the company etc. You shouldn't really be looking to filter at all at this point, rather you should be presenting an opportunity for the candidate to self filter. The only thing I filter for at all in that case is if the person does not have enough communication skills to even continue with the process (ie they only speak a language that no one in the hiring pipeline speaks). Now, it is sometimes impossible to scale up those coffee meetings either due to locality, scheduling, whatever so a phone conversation is the only choice. In those cases though, I think the mindset is the important thing. It isn't a phone screen. It's still just getting coffee, over the phone, with no coffee.
Strilanc 12y ago
You might find the recent paper "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err"[1] interesting. > [...] Dawes subsequently gathered a large body of evidence showing that human experts did not perform as well as simple linear models at clinical diagnosis, forecasting graduate students’ success, and other prediction tasks [...] > [...] cited reasons for the cause of algorithm aversion include the desire for perfect forecasts, the inability of algorithms to learn, the presumed ability of human forecasters to improve through experience, the notion that algorithms are dehumanizing, the notion that algorithms cannot properly consider individual targets, concerns about the ethicality of relying on algorithms to make important decisions, and the presumed inability of algorithms to incorporate qualitative data [...] Note: I removed inline citations in the second paragraph to make it briefer. 1: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-AlgorthimAversion-Dietvorst-Simmons-Massey.pdf http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-Algort...

by smtddr 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

What part of that comment do you disagree with? It recommends a lot of different things.

smtddr 12y ago
In general, I just don't like trying to describe people with science. That's a personal philosophy that I don't think I can really convince anyone else of if they don't already believe it. But specifically: >> Do not allow team members to contribute feedback based on "culture fit". I'm aware of how culture fit can lead to unfair discrimination, but throwing it out entirely I think is like "throwing the baby out with the bath water." I think culture-fit is important to have the right "vibe" in the office. Unfortunately, I know that "vibe preservation" can lead to aforementioned discrimination very easily but I also believe the "vibe" does exist and damaging it results in problems. >> Try to eliminate phone interviews entirely. They don't add value, but do amplify noise. If phone-interviews were 100% gone, then we'd need 2 in-person interviews. The first interview asking pretty much the same questions that could have been done over the phone. I think phone-interviews help screen out obvious bad-fits early on without investing too much time. >> Never interview a candidate with more than one interviewer From my own experience I've seen 2 interviewers describe a candidate almost completely opposite from each other and I found it incredibly fascinating to see how different 2 people witness the exact same event at the same time. Everyone being aware of those differences and the rest of the team knowing how the interviewers think day-to-day, I think gives balance. >> Have lunch with candidates if you like, but don't make lunch a Q&A with the candidate. What would you talk about at lunch if not Q&A? Or are we assuming that you specifically mean prohibit question to the candidate but expecting questions _from_ the candidate. >> Script your interviews. While I do think it's important to have some kind of benchmark sequence of questions, I think more is learned about the candidate(and I learn more about my potential new coworkers) when it feels more like an organic conversation rather than those scripted conversations I endure when calling AT&T about my malfunctioning LAN line. Or maybe you don't mean scripted in that strict of a form. Incidentally, do you have some kind of script notifying you when you're mentioned on HN? Sometimes it feels that way. You kinda "non-organically" appear when someone mentions you. :-P
- danielweber 12y ago
  I think culture-fit is important to have the right "vibe" in the office What kind of "vibe" are we looking for? Are people writing unit tests? Are they respectful to each other? Is devops easily reproducible?
  - smtddr 12y ago
    Too hard for me to define. Like not hiring because the candidate didn't have "passion". I realize how frustrating & annoying it is to be disqualified based on such of an ambiguous intangible concept - it borderlines on nonsensical, but I strongly believe it exists.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Do you also believe that you can reliably assess it in a face to face interview with a candidate? How sure are you that you're not just assessing a candidate's ability to be confident and unflappable in a job interview? Have you ever had the experience of hiring someone who did amazingly well in their interview and turned out to be a total zero on your dev team? I'm very wary of subjective signals I get from interviews.
      - smtddr 12y ago
        >>Do you also believe that you can reliably assess it in a face to face interview with a candidate? Nope, I don't. I absolutely believe there is a significant margin of error there but I also believe that, as human beings, we have to accept that we cannot be standardized plug-n-play hardware rather than try and come up with an algorithm that we rely on to tell us if a person is a good candidate or not. FWIW, I'm also against standardized testing in schools. You just end up people who are groomed specifically for those tests and in general the word "standardized" is kinda opposite of "diversity". >>How sure are you that you're not just assessing a candidate's ability to be confident and unflappable in a job interview? For dev jobs, at least you have background checks on past employment and/or education, a few coding tests and discussions around them to at least know this person isn't a totally 100% Grade-A Fraud. But indeed it is possible to end up with someone who just guessed right & prepared before hand for your questions then totally falls on their face the first month on the job. >>Have you ever had the experience of hiring someone who did amazingly well in their interview and turned out to be a total zero on your dev team? I'm very wary of subjective signals I get from interviews. I've seen this happen in at&t, more than once, where standardized'ish interviews were easy to guess and some people just knew exactly what to say and nobody applied any fraud-detection. But I admit I've also seen this happen in heavy culture-fit oriented interviews that still manage to leave something out. e.g., maybe the candidate actually gets frustrated easily and becomes very difficult to work with. If they did well in the interview then you never got to see what happens when they don't do well. Personally, I think this is just the chance we have to take as a society. If we really try hard to apply algos to humans I think we'll end up with a bunch of problems. I can see people grooming themselves specifically for those algos and I just don't think that's healthy for standardized interviews or standardized tests in schools. But indeed, this is all touchy-feeling-fuzzy-intangible-indefensible stuff. There's a movie called Gattaca: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ That kinda talks about this and it turns out people get different impressions from this movie. Some people think what the main character did was unjustified fraud and some people think it's society that treated him unfairly because an algorithm said he was unfit for the role.
danielweber 12y ago
I'll say that getting rid of phone interviews is wrong, unless you are keeping "phone screens" which are just making sure that the person isn't wildly out-of-place for the job. I've wasted time going to interviews when a phone interview would have revealed to both sides that it wasn't the right job for me.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  I think in general, you should advocate a "get a cup of coffee" approach to the first technical contact point in the hiring pipeline. The focus should be on describing the process, describing the job, doing a sales job on the company etc. You shouldn't really be looking to filter at all at this point, rather you should be presenting an opportunity for the candidate to self filter. The only thing I filter for at all in that case is if the person does not have enough communication skills to even continue with the process (ie they only speak a language that no one in the hiring pipeline speaks). Now, it is sometimes impossible to scale up those coffee meetings either due to locality, scheduling, whatever so a phone conversation is the only choice. In those cases though, I think the mindset is the important thing. It isn't a phone screen. It's still just getting coffee, over the phone, with no coffee.

Strilanc 12y ago

You might find the recent paper "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err"[1] interesting. > [...] Dawes subsequently gathered a large body of evidence showing that human experts did not perform as well as simple linear models at clinical diagnosis, forecasting graduate students’ success, and other prediction tasks [...] > [...] cited reasons for the cause of algorithm aversion include the desire for perfect forecasts, the inability of algorithms to learn, the presumed ability of human forecasters to improve through experience, the notion that algorithms are dehumanizing, the notion that algorithms cannot properly consider individual targets, concerns about the ethicality of relying on algorithms to make important decisions, and the presumed inability of algorithms to incorporate qualitative data [...] Note: I removed inline citations in the second paragraph to make it briefer. 1: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-AlgorthimAversion-Dietvorst-Simmons-Massey.pdf http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-Algort...