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

The Lesson to Unlearn

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 588 posts

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#421

Post by cookie_monsta »

jtbayly wrote: post #131
friendlybus wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Wozniak? Twitter launched without a business plan, Jack was on the Colbert Report in the 2000s saying he'll figure out how to monetize it eventually. I really question how much Uber cares about money recently...

An entrepreneur is somebody looking to start a company in my mind. I didn’t look up a definition, though. Regardless, Jack knew he needed to make money eventually is what that shows. Uber may be foolish in its attempts to make money, but it absolutely is trying to in the long term. There are other people that intend to swindle people (make money for themselves, not the company). There are other reasons to start a com…

Or "Mr. President"

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#422

Post by whycombinater »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #334
taeric wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is amusing how many of my peers still hold to the notion that heavier things fall faster. Not a higher terminal velocity, but the intuition that they accelerate faster. Hilariously tough for folks to shake.

There is a larger gravitational force on heavier things because they're heavier. Trouble is, they also have more inertia, which exactly counteracts the larger force (because of the principle of equivalence) and so they fall at the same acceleration as lighter objects.

But they also exert more force onto the earth. If you drop the sun onto the earth, for example...

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#423

Post by rglullis »

knzhou wrote: post #356
rglullis wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what?! Why?! I am not asking for any utopia. What I am asking is "Instead of setting ourselves for failure every time coming up with some scheme for testing performance, why can't we just use actual performance on the activity that we want to evaluate candidates"? It works for people in sports. It works for trade professions. It works for traders. It works for performers, entertainers, even entrepreneurs. Why c…

Because proper evaluation takes time and a bad choice carries a huge cost. In the absence of any objective measures, an employer gets around this by just hiring the son of the guy they golf with. Connections. Sports works, but only because sports are extremely popular, with tens of millions of people enthusiastically participating on a regular basis, and accessible to anybody no matter their age and income. This is n…

> In the absence of any objective measures

One would argue that this is the current status.

How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146?

How my grades in Computer Engineering can be used to predict my performance as an Engineer in a country where 85% of the graduates would work in non-technical and more profitable fields?

If a company looking for a Quant gets someone with a Master in Math and a good tracking record knocking on their door, would they stop and ask to see if they can get someone with a PhD instead?

You are right that "proper evaluation takes time". What I am saying is that standardized tests should not count as proper evaluation.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#424

Post by johnm »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #386
johnm wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, for all of the focus on the interview processes to "prevent" false positive hires, those same companies suck as actually getting rid of the bad hires. Some is rational risk aversion to lawsuits and the like but that clearly bs when you see just how fast people that aren't liked by someone high enough up the food chain are shown the door. The effect on morale and real productivity of getting rid of the toxic and…

The first job I had there was a probationary period - it was good and bad. It was good because you knew everybody there was extremely talented and you could rely on your coworkers. There was a bit of an understanding about the cut throat nature of the place though, and obviously that's not for everyone. But at the end of the day, when it came time to just get shit done, there was never any problem. I can't name that…

And let's not forget how scant real mentorship and training of managers is in this industry. Nor, how we've setup the power/money hierarchy that many people feel the only career growth path is to become a people manager (even if they aren't any good at it). :-(

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#425

Post by johnm »

mavhc wrote: post #370
marcosdumay wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't stop bad people from accumulating, you will have a problem no matter how selective is your hiring process.

Can't you just unhire them?

Yes but there's all sorts of silliness that people and companies need to unlearn so they can do this effectively and efficiently.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#426

Post by dunkelheit »

pavlov wrote: post #240

The tech industry has unfortunately adopted the methodology of centralized hackable tests as the canonical gatekeeping method in the form of programming interviews. Most big tech companies don't care about how good you have been at delivering some value through creating software: they want to see you deliver a very specific type of performance at a whiteboard. Interviewers are given specific math puzzle questions to…

There are alternatives but they are not necessarily better. E.g. academia seems to rely on references and publications for hiring. This seems closer to your wish of caring about "how good you have been". But consider the downsides - it is inherently more insular (to work for a famous professor you need a reference from someone, preferably also a famous professor) and also your thesis advisor can easily ruin your whole career.

Contrast that with our industry where a bright kid out of nowhere can study for the (imperfect, hackable, dehumanizing - I agree!) interview and have a realistic shot at that job at FAANG. At least I wish it still works this way, although of course it helps to be a Stanford graduate!

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#428

Post by knzhou »

rglullis wrote: post #423
knzhou wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because proper evaluation takes time and a bad choice carries a huge cost. In the absence of any objective measures, an employer gets around this by just hiring the son of the guy they golf with. Connections. Sports works, but only because sports are extremely popular, with tens of millions of people enthusiastically participating on a regular basis, and accessible to anybody no matter their age and income. This is n…

> In the absence of any objective measures One would argue that this is the current status. How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146? How my grades in Computer Engineering can be used to predict my performance as an Engineer in a country where 85% of the graduates would work in non-technical and more profitable fields? If a company looking for…

Again, the alternative to standardized tests and credentials is hiring based on connections, ethnicity, pedigree, physical appearance, and superficial confidence. These problems are exactly why meritocracy was invented in the first place. The alternative is not everybody getting the jobs they want, it's you being turned away without any consideration at all because the boss already hired their cousin.

> How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146?

You can't take two proper WAIS-IV tests in two hours. In fact, unless you have been part of an unusual psychology study, you've probably never taken a real IQ test in your life. There are a lot of gimmicky free things on the internet that call themselves IQ tests but aren't predictive of anything.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#429

Post by softwaredoug »

One solution might be to silo the people who evaluate the students from those that teach the materials. Treat the test more about evaluating the effectiveness of instructors and less about the students.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#430

Post by 80386 »

jblwps wrote: post #265
c64112af69ea8a3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look for an unschooling school, strange as that may sound. Free democratic and Sudbury Valley model are some of the things to search for. There aren't many around but the numbers are increasing. We send our son to one. It's a leap of faith; the kids essentially "do whatever". But it seems worth it compared to the damage done by middle and high school. And the kids that I've seen come out of this school seem to do wel…

Montessori schools as well: "Follow the child"

Be careful with Montessori.

I went to a "traditional Montessori" school for a few months when I was very young. Long story short, their educational method insisted that we needed instruction in how to play with toys before we were allowed to do so, and we needed to do so on mats, which needed to be rolled up tidily at the end of the prescribed playtime.

The problem with that was that we already knew what Legos were. But we were supposed to pretend we didn't, in order to appease the teacher.

I think this was the same school that insisted to my parents that I couldn't read because they (the school) hadn't taught me to read. My parents taught me to read. So they had me demonstrate, and the teacher decided my parents must have... trained me to pretend to read.

Post reply on HN