Live data from Hacker News

Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

blog.interviewing.io

161–170 of 336 posts

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on the "desire to increase information asymmetry" bit? I mean, I get that the employer always wants to be on the upper hand in that way, but I don't see how questions like this do that.

Try and extract that level of detail about the company's internal dynamics, desires, and plans in an interview and see how far you get.

Well, I find I answer those types of questions at such a vague level of detail anyway that I don’t think anybody’s getting any real information out of my answers.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#162
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if I understand your question. Do you mean the mental issues part? If so, back then we all just thought the HR posting the job was retarded. If I saw something stupid, the person was stupid. It never hurt me. Nowadays the whole imposter syndrome is becoming a bigger issue. People are becoming more and more inadequate in their own skin. It’s all just getting offended by stuff seen, no matter how small. I grew…

Just wondering why people think that being challenged is a terrible thing. Its almost like being mediocre is good and having some mental problem is better than good performance. Begs the question.. "What is society rewarding ? "

Maybe it's a coping mechanism for unrealistic expectations?

I'm not saying 100%, but playing with that idea. If you grow up your whole life on stories of teens making millions and you're a loser if you don't. What else is there for you?

I grew up that making bank like that was rare. Super rare. You work for it. Some way, some how. Through connections or through ideas. But it's not "normal". Thus, don't think it is. It does seem on social media and the filth, that being stupid rich is normal and you're a loser if you're not.

I can understand that if you grow up seeing that, a majority of your developing life... yea... I'd probably have a mental breakdown too. What else is there? You think, well, your life is over. It's too late to "become rich" or important.

In some respects, the hipster movement is a slightly interesting counter culture to that problem. Looking back to the old ways. I think they take it too far and are dumb about it sometimes. But, at this moment while writing this, I can respect it. What we have now is not normal. It's easy to deal with if you remember a day when no one had cell phones. You ran around outside doing dumbshit. No one cried if you called them an asshole, they just hit you in the mouth and the day was done. Hell, if I had a kid in school now, I'd be scared that they might call someone a boy or girl and end up on the news because of it. That's an irrational fear on my own right. But, yea, I seem to have it.

I don't know. I don't feel like this is well thought out. It's just a weird thing that I understand that there is an inherent problem with people growing up nowadays and mental illness is a bad result of it. Exactly what, I don't know.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#163
post #89
post #26

As someone with no credentials or official training, and someone who also works at a big megacorporation as an engineer, imposter syndrome hits me fairly hard, especially during interviews. It's really hard to compete with the people who actually have proof that they know what they're doing, and I'm usually interviewing for a job that has a strict requirement of a "bachelors in CS, Math or Physics, Masters preferred"…

I've done 3 interviews in the last couple weeks where candidates couldn't do a simple Python dictionary lookup. These were people with a Masters in CS and have Python as their primary language. I wouldn't worry about being an Impostor.

Am I missing something, or do you mean they didn't know `myDict['key'] `?

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do folks really typically do that many practice interviews? I didn't do any practice interviews intentionally but I did get rejected from the first two places I interviewed out of college, so the effect was the same. If for some reason a person absolutely couldn't risk being rejected by a few places, practising some other way might be a sensible move :)

The point of a "practice interview" is that you can actually get feedback, as opposed to going and doing a "real" interview for practice. As for not being able to risk rejection, what is there to risk besides time? I've heard of people practicing for 3+ months. In that same time period, one could probably get 10 onsite interviews and a lot more phone screens in. The fundamental problem is the lack of feedback on reje…

  As for not being able to risk rejection,
  what is there to risk besides time?
Hypothetically, if you interview at employers in preference order, bungling the first two interviews would mean missing out on your first two preferences.

And if you avoided that by applying to your twentieth-preference company first for practice, some people would feel bad or insincere.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of literature go read some of the top posts at /r/cscareerquestions . Students are expected to put in tons of hours "grinding" study sessions for interviews. Recently there was a post about a new grad who felt he wasn't doing very well at his job because he spent to much time practicing for interviews

> Students are expected to put in tons of hours "grinding" study sessions for interviews. You should never study for interviews. If the company isn't asking questions relevant to the work or you can't answer those types of questions then it's best to not work there. General interview skills are different than studying CS problems.

> If the company isn't asking questions relevant to the work or you can't answer those types of questions then it's best to not work there.

Tell that to every company in the Seattle area. They all seem to think that Hackerrank-ing everyone is a good way to hire because the bigger companies do it. It's an evolution of "nobody got fired for buying IBM" but instead they're buying the interview methods that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are using.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#166
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wondering why people think that being challenged is a terrible thing. Its almost like being mediocre is good and having some mental problem is better than good performance. Begs the question.. "What is society rewarding ? "

There's other ways to challenge oneself that doesn't involve the workplace or their day job.

You know what's funny, I don't think hobbies are an acceptable thing anymore. Seems like "hobbies" are demonized if they're not "productive".

I even have to combat the random feelings that "I should be working" instead of just taking time off for me.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#167
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interviewer should push you to your limits and the more you know, the more they should push. Granted, this is HN, but this viewpoint is very tech-engineer focused. Most jobs aren't like this at all. Chicken-parts processor interviews aren't like this, para-legal interviews aren't like this, firefighter interviews aren't like this, teacher interviews aren't like this, etc. For the vast majority of jobs out there,…

> Hanlon's Razor states that the mostly likely explanation is not conspiracy, but stupidity. Most of the time, your interviewers are just dumb/inexperienced/busy/assholes. What are the odds that everyone in your interview is dumb/inexperienced/busy or an asshole versus the odds that it's just you ?

>What are the odds that everyone in your interview is dumb/inexperienced/busy or an asshole versus the odds that it's just you?

Let's assume that your interviewer is selected at random from the population and that traits are independent from each other. Let's further assume that 50% of people are 'dumb', that 30% of people are inexperienced, that 90% of people are 'busy', and that 50% of people are assholes. Honestly, I think these estimates are kind to most people in corporate America, but we're going from a random sample of the population. You can play around with the odds yourself and see what you get.

Now, my probability math isn't the best these days, but I can give this a go:

The odds that your interviewer is all four of the listed traits is ~7%.

Writing out the matrix for all the probabilities is going to take a while and really isn't formatted well for HN, so I'll skip most of them and just focus on the dumb assholes. So the odds that your interviewer is:

- dumb, inexperienced, and an asshole is ~8%

- dumb, 'busy', and an asshole is ~23%

- dumb and an asshole is ~25%

Now, that's just a single interviewer. You typically get a few rounds of them. Let's say that we have three interviewers to go through. What are the odds that at least one of them is a dumb asshole? Well, again, my probability math isn't the best, but I think that you just add the events together. So, the odds that you have at least one dumb asshole to be interviewed by is ~75%. Again, though, probability math is a head-trip to me and I always have to relearn it when I do it.

Now, you asked what the odds were that the person being interviewed is the one at fault. Again, we have to assume that we are being picked at random from the population. I'll use the numbers as above and assume they are randomly distributed in a person likewise.

The odds that both you are all four things (dumb/inexperienced/busy/asshole) is still just ~7%, and likewise for the rest of the permutations. For the sake of brevity, let's assume that the interviewee is dumb asshole and that the person giving the interview is NOT a dumb asshole. The probability that they are not a dumb asshole is ~75%. The odds that you, the interviewee, are a dumb asshole are ~25%. Again, though, probability math is a head-trip, I think the odds are then just multiplied to give the odds of that particular interaction at ~19%, or just shy of 1/5th of the interviews.

Now, again, you have to go through three of these rounds of interviews, each time going through the independent probability math. Again, my probabilty math isn't the best here, but I think the odds that you are a dumb asshole and that the interviewers are NOT dumb assholes is ~56%. Again, assume random distributions of traits and random sampling of people and that my distributions of traits are accurate.

Hope it helps!

EDIT: Crap! You asked a question I did not answer (sorry): what are the odds that ALL the interviewers have NONE of the four listed traits and you have at least one of the traits. Well, the odds that a random person does NOT have ANY of the listed independent traits is ~2%. That ALL three of these hypothetical interviewers would not have ANY of the listed traits is ~0.000054%. Now, that you have NONE of the traits is ~93%, but lest focus on the dumb assholes again. So the odds that you have at least the dumb trait OR the asshole trait are ~50% ( Thank God I chose both those percentages to be the same!). So, given that you have at least one trait, and that the interviewers have NONE of the traits, what are those odds? They are ~0.000027%. Again, though, my math is not always the best, so please re-check.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of a "practice interview" is that you can actually get feedback, as opposed to going and doing a "real" interview for practice. As for not being able to risk rejection, what is there to risk besides time? I've heard of people practicing for 3+ months. In that same time period, one could probably get 10 onsite interviews and a lot more phone screens in. The fundamental problem is the lack of feedback on reje…

As for not being able to risk rejection, what is there to risk besides time? Hypothetically, if you interview at employers in preference order, bungling the first two interviews would mean missing out on your first two preferences. And if you avoided that by applying to your twentieth-preference company first for practice, some people would feel bad or insincere.

Given how companies treat candidates and employees as disposable these days, nobody should feel bad about giving a little of that treatment back.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#169

“More experienced engineers are more accurate about their interview performance...” Dunning–Kruger effect returns again! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Dunning-Kruger shows up in some front page discussion almost once a day. What does that say about the "effect"?

It's group think. Don't read into it too much.

Re: Impostor syndrome strikes men just as hard as women in technical interviews

#170
post #107

It makes me thrilled to see that we're finally talking about data around gender issues, regardless of what that data actually says. It seems like we're finally getting over the taboo and we're mature enough to look at facts.

Maybe in a couple years we can talk about statistics suggesting inherent gender differences in academic interest without getting screamed at.
Post reply on HN