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

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

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 336 posts

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

#321

Post by x220 »

PunchTornado wrote: post #290
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible though, there has been scientific research in the matter. One interesting one is that gender differences in academic interest actually increase when people are given equal opportunities, pay, freedom of choice, etc.

equal opportunities? freedom of choice? How can you control for these really abstract concepts that involve thousands of variables. What constitutes freedom of choice when you have the internet and articles that say males should do x and women y? How can you say that something is inherited or environmental? Even with biology, most of the disease imply both factors. I've seen some of the articles about the Nordic coun…

The Nordic countries are the most egalitarian countries on earth with regards to rights, equal pay, and gender norms. The sex differences in many different academic fields and professions persist and are even more pronounced than countries which are more blatantly sexist. This is the best evidence available, and it suggests that not everything is socially learned. This suggests that some basic tenets of social constructivism are false by its own criteria.

Rather than accepting no evidence, why don't you suggest a better way to test this idea and explain why your test would be better?

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

#322

Post by x220 »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #201
x220 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Correlation != Causation

That statement should be the beginning of a discussion, not the end of it.

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

#323

Post by mmirate »

jiveturkey wrote: post #225
mmirate wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is presumably a big deal to those whom it affects. But why is it a big deal to anyone else besides those folks' friends, family, etc.? (And, perhaps, to some hypothetical peddlers of self-help books targeted at those with impostor syndrome; my unentrepreneurial mind can't see any other way to profit from it, but you get the idea.)

> But why is it a big deal to anyone else it’s not. what’s your point?

I agree it isn't. The person I was replying to, implied it inherently is.

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

#324

Post by zeroname »

Balgair wrote: post #167
zeroname wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

A for effort.

> 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%.

This is what I meant to ask, but I should've worded it differently.

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

#325

Post by pbecotte »

nostrademons wrote: post #82
Frondo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if I'm the only person who thinks an interviewer should assess whether the person can do the job, and that an interviewer pushing someone to their limits seems like an inappropriate activity for the employer-employee assessment process.

I feel like there are two different conceptions about what it means to "do a job" that are co-existing within the economy, and a lot work-related offense and disgruntlement occurs because of mismatched expectations. In one conception, "a job" means that your boss sets out a list of tasks for you to do, and you do them, consistently and reliably. As long as you do what you are told, you will be paid the salary agreed…

This may have been the best comment I have read on HN. Sounds like the foundation of a blog post.

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

#326

Post by rorykoehler »

cirgue wrote: post #319
rorykoehler wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you don't. I know you don't because you have no idea who the top 5% of applicants are. Not after interviews, not after 6 months on the job, not even 10 years in the job. You can't distill something as complex as humans working in teams that form a part of a larger organisation into a single number like that. That's not how the world works. For example Bob was doing great work but then his wife cheated on him and h…

You're completely right of course, we hire people who we believe are the top 5% of the applicant pool. The point remains the same: what a company says about their hiring standards has little or no bearing on what their standards actually are in the context of the entire universe of software engineers (or any other field)

I'm still not quite sure what you think the 5% measures?

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

#327

Post by kamaal »

rorykoehler wrote: post #285
cirgue wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We hire the top 5% of applicants. This says a lot about our applicant pool. It says very little about our team. No one here is from a top program. Many don't even have CS degrees.

No you don't. I know you don't because you have no idea who the top 5% of applicants are. Not after interviews, not after 6 months on the job, not even 10 years in the job. You can't distill something as complex as humans working in teams that form a part of a larger organisation into a single number like that. That's not how the world works. For example Bob was doing great work but then his wife cheated on him and h…

This discussion came up in even during that Netflix thread.

These companies aren't looking for top 1% people. They are looking for top 1% people who are in form currently.

The day you get unlucky and slip out of form, they don't want you.

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

#328

Post by kamaal »

ashelmire wrote: post #76
commandlinefan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been interviewed by multiple people - I think 12 was the high, and 4 was the low. When I do end up getting the job, I always wonder... which of them said yes and which said no?

12 people! What were they interviewing you for, a role as the code messiah?

The also do bar raiser rounds on top of those 12 rounds.

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

#329

Post by kamaal »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #257
brandall10 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not that unusual. 15 minute recruiter screen -> 1 hour tech screen -> 5 hour onsite (5 parts w/ 2 devs each) can do it. I've probably exceeded 20 before if you count lunch and meeting VPs/directors toward the end.

I still don't get it tbh. Our interview process is 3-4 1 hour talks at most - introduction / initial interview (phone or face to face) with 1-2 people (manager / HR), technical interview / code review (2 people), then a final chat with the CEO and finally a contract offer / negotiation. People can have a signed contract within a day. And we are actually very demanding of our people.

>> And we are actually very demanding of our people.

That explains it. If the job is hard, people just faffling around don't even bother to apply.

You need 12 adversarial grilling rounds of interviews so that you can hire what you claim to be the best and put them to build JSONs.

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

#330

Post by rorykoehler »

kamaal wrote: post #327
rorykoehler wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you don't. I know you don't because you have no idea who the top 5% of applicants are. Not after interviews, not after 6 months on the job, not even 10 years in the job. You can't distill something as complex as humans working in teams that form a part of a larger organisation into a single number like that. That's not how the world works. For example Bob was doing great work but then his wife cheated on him and h…

This discussion came up in even during that Netflix thread. These companies aren't looking for top 1% people. They are looking for top 1% people who are in form currently. The day you get unlucky and slip out of form, they don't want you.

Which means they will miss the real top performers. The savants who are capable of flashes of brilliance that can make whole new industries. These people will most definitely fall outside any measure / quantifiable scale that any company uses for comfort.
Post reply on HN