Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
1–10 of 300 posts
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#2This reminds me of Jewish Problems[0], designed to "prevent Jews and other undesirables from getting a passing grade" at the entrance exams to the math department of Moscow State University.
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#3interesting that “teasers” are viewed as callous and abusive and yet analytical problem solving is viewed as predictive. fine line.
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#4So, there's a hidden value to these sorts of questions, but it is useful to the interviewee, not the interviewer. If they use lots of these questions, you probably don't want to work there, or at least not for the person who's asking those questions.
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#5The single most effective interview question I ask: "What do you want to do?". I drill down on that to a granulator level as I try to make sure the tasks, duties and overall position matches what the candidate really wants for themselves. Its followed-up with a "How would you do it?", again persisting in the discussion (not interrogation) until we both are comfortable with the sensibility and symmetry of the answers.
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#6interesting that “teasers” are viewed as callous and abusive and yet analytical problem solving is viewed as predictive. fine line.
A brain teaser usually has nothing to do with the work... What would asking about the shape of manhole covers have to do with OOP?
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#7As someone who does both a lot of interviewing (at Google) and gives a lot of advice on interviewing to people just starting out, this rhymes with my intuition about why some people get into interviews: even without the use of brainteasers (which, for the record, are not used at Google), the interview process is hard. People rarely come out of it without at least a twinge of frustration of humiliation. I'm not immune to this, I got hired at Google despite having a few interviews where I thought "God damn that was horrible," and I didn't get offers at places I know I was good enough to work at because I wasn't performing at my best for whatever reason and nuked the interviews.
I have a pet theory that when people interview they bring this buried frustration into the room with them and use the interviewing process to play the part of the people they feel humiliated them. It's conceivable that people with latent meanness, or as this abstract calls it tendencies for "narcissism and sadism" who aren't aware enough of their biases to try to counteract them, will use these sorts of questions to make themselves feel better.
Also, and this is probably more specific, there's a bit of a mythos around companies like Google and friends that have tough interviews and high standards: they hire the best people, they're doing the best work, they're the smartest, etc. I can tell you from experience, that mythos doesn't hold up once you're doing you day to day job. I've seen people with stunning credentials doing what most would consider exciting work become genuinely bored. Perhaps for some of them interviewing is a way of reminding themselves of how desirable and high status their workplace is, to the detriment of the poor candidate.
And of course, as a disclaimer, this isn't even anecdote, these are my own personal musings on psychology. Don't confuse this with insight into the Google hiring process.
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#8Interviewing others can certainly expose your own faults. In our last round of interviews, I certainly could have done better by our candidates. I learned, and will do better next time.
But judging a company based on their questions may be expecting too much. Nobody is perfect, and if you expect perfection from someone who will end up being a member of your team, you might be setting everyone up for disappointment. Or you might be walking away from a good team or product just because they are not good at interviewing.
Instead, if they ask questions that imply cultural problems or personality conflicts, ask about it. Find out if they are just bad interviewers, or if they do have deeper problems. Because bad interviewers are not always a bad sign -- it could mean they don't have to do it often. It could also mean they are trying to expand the skills of people new to interviewing by giving them opportunities to do something new. Also, companies who have mastered the interview process means they do it often, which could be a sign of high turnover.
In short, it is good to notice problems, ask about them, then think through all the implications of the answers before making decisions.
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#9As someone who does both a lot of interviewing (at Google) and gives a lot of advice on interviewing to people just starting out, this rhymes with my intuition about why some people get into interviews: even without the use of brainteasers (which, for the record, are not used at Google), the interview process is hard . People rarely come out of it without at least a twinge of frustration of humiliation. I'm not immun…
It's like military academy (or fraternity) hazing. You've been abused, therefore you want to pass the load of that abuse on. Maybe you delude yourself into calling it "tradition" or "high standards" or maybe you're just honest and enjoy the sadism of it all.
Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions
#10interesting that “teasers” are viewed as callous and abusive and yet analytical problem solving is viewed as predictive. fine line.
A brain teaser usually has nothing to do with the work... What would asking about the shape of manhole covers have to do with OOP?
The theory would be that it allows the interviewee to demonstrate abstract reasoning skills, which are useful in many domains.