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

What's going on here, with this human?

grahamduncan.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#81

Post by d0mine »

tux1968 wrote: post #69
iandanforth wrote: post #53

This seems like a load of crap. More specifically it seems like a pre-scientific mindset. You use analogy and metaphor to describe phenomena and structures that are only half-understood to try to rationalize them and fit them into some sort of consistent narrative. Wisdom is knowledge you can't describe. This seems like wisdom but just as it's really hard for a professional tennis player to describe exactly how they…

> it's really hard for a professional tennis player to describe exactly how they know where an opponent is going to hit a ball Andre Agassi explains one exact way in just under three minutes: https://youtu.be/57BMzCM6hQI

It is rather specific. How many tennis players have such explicit ticks?

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#82

Post by d0mine »

yeahnah22 wrote: post #61
iandanforth wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"he knew the Big Five was solid as science" His discussion is neither critical nor credible.

He’s assuming some knowledge and experience on the part of the reader; that’s how it appears to me. Upon reflection it seems like he went overly broad with the scope of this article. If you’ve already interacted with things like the Enneagram test, you’ll already have the context to deal with his comments. I learned a ton from this post, perhaps it’s because I’ve had a lot of experience interacting with all the probl…

No judgement but your comments read like they are written by a cult acolyte e.g., I'm sure there are many steps, "things" to learn in Scientology

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#83

Post by jackbravo »

I loved this part, and it is something we try to do in my current company when interviewing. Interview for potential. What are they good for, even if not for us, and with the purpose of keep the door open if they decide to come back later.

> I also try to stick to the default assumption that “everyone is an A player at something.” It’s a more effective and more dynamic way to approach an interview—a live, fascinating puzzle to discover what the elephant and the rider do well—rather than going in with the purpose of determining whether someone is an A player in a binary, Manichean way. I prefer to imagine that I’m trying to find the candidate the best possible job for them; it may be the job I had in mind, or something else altogether.

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#84

Post by ItsMonkk »

whatever_dude wrote: post #44
mdorazio wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partially agree. A good hiring process can boost your odds of finding the “right” people, but my personal experience has been that firing well is at least as important as hiring well. Firing well is also something that most companies do very poorly.

This. It's extremely difficult to hire well, because no one knows what that even is. Firing well is somewhat easier because almost everybody knows who must be fired, but taking action is the difficult part.

It seems rather obvious to me that most hiring should be done at the intern/contractor level, where the interview process is extremely basic and let's most people through. Can you do a single basic level hackerrank question? Welcome aboard. Pushing for harder and harder questions simply doesn't accomplish anything real.

Once proven that a candidate is able to learn and adapt to the job, they should be moved to a full-time position, with pay above what is currently being given to that role. If they aren't excellent, let them go. As a company you want to advertise this promotion experience so that people who know they will pass this test will feel more comfortable signing up for a "lowly" temp position.

The top 5% or so of candidates might not take that offer, but you can leave a hole for exceptional candidates based on past experiences and proven success.

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#85

Post by yeahnah22 »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #67
yeahnah22 wrote: post #58

It’s become a trope that the news written about topics we know is woeful and unreliable, yet we trust the news written about anything else. Now I feel the same about HN. I know a decent amount about this topic - and the comments on this article are a dumpster fire so far. Hot take after hot take from people who didn’t understand the article, but act as if they did. Is the rest of HN like this, too?

The hottest take of all in every HN comment thread is the one talking about how bad the other comments are yet not adding anything to the conversation. Do you have something to say about the article? You said you know a lot about the topic.

In the cold light of day I regret my obnoxious comment

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#86

Post by anonfornoreason »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I got much of value out of this on a quick reading. Could someone summarize the lessons of this article? I think it's too psyche-oriented. Trying to psycho-analyze the candidates? Trying to find a person from whom you can get the maximum benefit? I've always had the feeling that people who are very interested in psychology are really trying to gain an edge over the others who they now "understand better"…

From the article, this person has done over 4,000 interviews. Their primary job is to talk to people, find out as much reliable information as possible to allow them to decide whether they are the right fit for the role. When this is your job, you need some framework/toolchain to do it in a consistent manner.

The problem (as many people here would frame it at least) is that unlike engineering, the best practices are very soft and subjective to each person, since the perception of another person is through your own lens. So this author is trying to convey the importance of having multiple lenses to view people through, so you have a higher chance of seeing signal from that person, rather than reflected signal from yourself.

I found it very helpful (and I am prone to dismissing people that do this as scummy/manipulative when I encounter them), and made me a little more understanding.

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#87

Post by anonfornoreason »

comfyinnernet wrote: post #48

I read the description of a "self-authoring" mind. Can someone ELI5 how it differs from the description of a "psychopath"?

Do you want to go through life on a whim, at the mercy of your subconscious self, with no real insight into why you do the things you do, think the things you think, like the things you like? It's not psychopathic to want to tease out what you are, what you want, and once you do that, how to play the game of life such that you build your world to match what makes you happy?

This can be at a macro/life level, but it can also be at a much smaller scale. There was an example in the article on it, but to add another one that I think is similar: student submits an essay to the teacher, it's a good essay with better grammar, fact checking, etc than their friend's essay. Their friend's essay gets a higher score. Upon reflection, the friend's essay, while being lower quality, plays to the obvious preferences/biases the teacher has displayed throughout the term. For your next essay, you both do the high quality work, but you work in some aspects of what you now know the teacher wants to hear.

Is it manipulative or dishonest to do the latter? Some might think so. Other might think you are hacking the system to your advantage and hurting no one in the process.

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#88

Post by rramadass »

as_i_fall wrote: post #47

Wow this is atrocious. All of the fairly meager advice in this is either bad or totally unactionable. The references to outmoded concepts from pop-psych and generic aphorisms also really aren't convincing me that this person has any idea what they're talking about.

Yep, it almost seems like a "Gish Gallop" of a lot of terms none of which have any sound standing.

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#89

Post by galaxyLogic »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #86
galaxyLogic wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I got much of value out of this on a quick reading. Could someone summarize the lessons of this article? I think it's too psyche-oriented. Trying to psycho-analyze the candidates? Trying to find a person from whom you can get the maximum benefit? I've always had the feeling that people who are very interested in psychology are really trying to gain an edge over the others who they now "understand better"…

From the article, this person has done over 4,000 interviews. Their primary job is to talk to people, find out as much reliable information as possible to allow them to decide whether they are the right fit for the role. When this is your job, you need some framework/toolchain to do it in a consistent manner. The problem (as many people here would frame it at least) is that unlike engineering, the best practices are…

> So this author is trying to convey the importance of having multiple lenses

That is important no doubt. I would have preferred seeing a short practical list of what those different lenses are.

As it is, a contemplative article like this makes me think there is not much understanding of the subject at hand, therefore let me convey to you the feeling that I don't know if my approach is correct here's some other "lenses" that might be more or less correct too ...

No doubt the topic is a difficult one so it is good that people are thinking about it and trying to verbalize some possible solutions.

Re: What's going on here, with this human?

#90

Post by 7fYZ7mJh3RNKNaG »

colpabar wrote: post #71
mleonhard wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The articles on software engineering are often high quality. The HN comments on such articles are usually better than the articles. I check https://news.ycombinator.com/classic rather than the front page. I have noticed that, in the last 6 months or so, more low-quality comments get voted to the first page on HN posts than before. It feels like a new Eternal September. I spend more of my downvotes on distracting redd…

What's the difference between the front page and the classic view? I didn't know about this. >I spend more of my downvotes on distracting reddit-style comments than on incorrect posts. Is my change in downvoting behavior contributing to the decline? I don't think so. I can't downvote yet, but that's how I imagine I'll use the feature too. It warms my heart seeing most "reddit-style" (I'd argue some are twitter-style…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26465569 - HN front page ranked using only votes from early users (2009)
Post reply on HN