Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 300 posts

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#101

Post by bitwize »

biztos wrote: post #66
EngineerBetter wrote: post #49

We ask people to pair-program with an interviewer on a realistic task. No tricks, no brainteasers. We just get to see how people do the job we want them to do.

Is pair-programming actually used in your company? Just curious, as I do something similar but solely to see how the person writes code. Folks are free to pair-program or not once hired. I've found almost everyone needs help on some simple part of the task, and how they respond to the help is pretty useful information.

I've interviewed at places with a pair programming part of the interview, that didn't use pairing during actual development.

It is an enormous help toward glimpsing the mind of the programmer as they program.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#102

Post by pmiller2 »

gcatalfamo wrote: post #12
jfasi wrote: post #7

As 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…

I have been interviewed at Google and I was given a brainteaser. "Can you estimate Google AdWords revenue for Italy - B2B?"

“Why would I need to estimate that if I worked at Google?”

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#103

Post by arayh »

tw1010 wrote: post #78

Woah, papers on "dark motives", that sounds interesting. Anyone know of any other good papers on hidden motives similar to this one?

I like this paper on dark patterns: http://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2018_Grayetal_CHI_Dar...

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#104

Post by delavara »

jfasi wrote: post #7

As 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…

"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."

This also explains when people chew out service workers for petty things.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#105

Post by spitfire »

Hunter and Schmidt did a meta-study of 85 (now 100, with the follow up) years of research on hiring criteria. [1] There are three attributes you need to select for to identify performing employees in intellectual fields.

    - General mental ability (Are they generally smart)
    Use WAIS or if there are artifacts of GMA(Complex work they've done themselves) available use them as proxies. 
    Using IQ is effectively illegal[2] in the US, so you'll have to find a test that acts as a good proxy.


    - Work sample test. NOT HAZING! As close as possible to the actual work they'd be doing. Try to make it apples-to-apples comparison across candidates. Also, try and make accomidations for candidates not knowing your company shibboleth/tools/infra.


    - Integrity. The first two won't matter if you hire dishonest people or politicians. There are existing tests available for this, you can purchase for
This alone will get you > 65% hit rate [1], and can be done inside of three hours. There's no need for day long (or multi-day) gladiator style gauntlets. Apply this process to EVERYONE, including that elite cool kid from the "right" school/company. You don't want to exclude part of your sample population!

[1] http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%....

[2] Technically IQ tests are not "illegal", but the bar courts have decided companies have to climb is so high it effectively means they are. There is existing case law directly covering IQ tests in hiring. You should speak with your lawyer before you decide to try IQ tests. [3] 2016 update of Hunter Schmidt: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/articles/2016-100%20Yrs%20...

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#107

Post by gaius »

Timmah wrote: post #97
nimbius wrote: post #28

I dont work in tech, im an engine mechanic by trade, but im fascinated to know why/how often this happens in a tech interview? Do programmers/sys admins really endure this kind of aggravation in their interviews? The hardest question I've ever asked one of my shop mechanics during an interview was how does Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) in a Diesel engine affect thermal efficiency, smoke output and emissions of the…

It happens because the types of problems software engineers face are random and require active engagement and creativity to solve. There's no book that you can read that says "if the program crashes, try these things". Yes there are basics but theres no real formula that always leads to the solution. Each program is unique enough that you have to study the internals of how it works and then test hypotheses about the…

There's no book that you can read that says "if the program crashes, try these things".

Here you go: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/valgrind/manual/

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#108

Post by GW150914 »

delavara wrote: post #104
jfasi wrote: post #7

As 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…

"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." This also explains when people chew out service workers for petty things.

I think that has more to do with the massive power asymmetry, because a service worker is generally expected to smile and take it. They don’t represent someone who humiliated the angry customer, they represent a punching bag.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#109

Post by make3 »

segmondy wrote: post #68
throwawaymath wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say the questions that fund asked you are relevant to the work you do (or would be doing) there? I think that's the core criticism most people levy against the "high tech" interview questions.

People that don't get the offer tend to complain about such things. They are asking questions to measure how you think, to measure your potential, to see how you handle stress. If you are stressing over an interview, what will you do when you lose $1 million in 10 seconds?

that doesn't justify asking questions that are extremely poor predictors of work performance

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#110

Post by gaius »

athenot wrote: post #64
welcome_dragon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, as long as getting the right answer isn't important. I flat out tell people I don't care if they get the right answer, that I just want to hear their thought process. Such questions used in this way are extremely valuable.

I do the same thing. It's how the thought process works that's interesting, not the result. There is no problem or teaser whose answer is both short enough to be devised during an interview AND is representative of how a candidate would perform in real projects. Our field deals with complex systems in many dimensions. Instead, looking for how a candidate approaches a problem, do they just go for the obvious solutions…

It's how the thought process works that's interesting, not the result.

I wonder how many interviewers have the necessary background in clinical psychiatry to analyze a candidate's thought process, or if that's just more handwaving away hazing.

Post reply on HN