Hiring for conscientiousness (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#41

Post by zepto » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #35

mac-chaffee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conscientious has more than one definition. Yes, that is one of them. I'm referring to the other definition which does involve right and wrong: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conscientious

That is also the same. See the clarified example: "She's a conscientious judge, who does not let personal prejudices influence her decisions." Basically she does her duty as a judge instead of letting her personal feelings influence her judgements. Conscientious people do things by the book.

It’s not anywhere near that simple.

A judge not letting one’s feelings influence their decisions can also be a matter of conscience, because they believe that justice should be equal for all.

Conscientious people do generally go by the ‘book’ or convention, but it matters to them whether the ‘book’ is ethical or not.

That doesn’t mean they have a sense of universal ethics. You could certainly have a conscientious concentration camp commandant who believed that fascism was the most ethical system and that everything else was less honest, but the point is that conscience is part of the equation.

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#42

Post by phkahler » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #8

Was anybody else completely turned off by the pop-up that screams "Keep Reading..."? Ugh. I quit after that. Also, please don't confuse conscientiousness with bed-side manner. They are plenty of people have excellent "bed-side manner" (all industries), but are not conscientiousness. Think of a school librarian who is loved by the children, but cannot manage the day-to-day work of library operations. The two may be co…

>> Was anybody else completely turned off by the pop-up that screams "Keep Reading..."? Ugh. I quit after that.

Me too, but because it wasn't clear how to get rid of it without "continue with Google" or the other options. I always stop reading when presented with that crap. This one was particularly annoying with how far it let me read before making me stop.

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#43

Post by brigandish » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #37

brigandish wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Oxford English dictionary: > conscientious | ˌkɒnʃɪˈɛnʃəs | adjective > 1 wishing to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly: a conscientious man, he took his duties very seriously. > 2 relating to a person's conscience: the individual is denied even the opportunity to break the law on conscientious grounds.

It means you follow the laws and do what you are supposed to do, but it isn't conscience in the other senses. A soldier carrying out orders is conscientious, but his conscience might not be clean. This works for both of those definitions.

I can read, thanks. In fact, we all can. Why are you continuing to argue? The definition is right there in black and white, I'm willing to bet that no one here is interested in semantic arguments for their own sake nor for the sake of your ego so please don't continue.

Wow, arguing with the Oxford English dictionary…

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#44

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:58 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #38

Jensson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means you follow the laws and do what you are supposed to do, but it isn't conscience in the other senses. A soldier carrying out orders is conscientious, but his conscience might not be clean. This works for both of those definitions.

No it doesn’t. It violates definition 2.

Generally, when people talk about conscientiousness in this sense (certainly the article), they're talking about the psychological construct (i.e. a named pattern of correlations that emerges from self report questionnaire analysis) rather than the dictionary definition.

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#45

Post by Jensson » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #43

Jensson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means you follow the laws and do what you are supposed to do, but it isn't conscience in the other senses. A soldier carrying out orders is conscientious, but his conscience might not be clean. This works for both of those definitions.

I can read, thanks. In fact, we all can. Why are you continuing to argue? The definition is right there in black and white, I'm willing to bet that no one here is interested in semantic arguments for their own sake nor for the sake of your ego so please don't continue. Wow, arguing with the Oxford English dictionary …

But in the context of the article we are talking about the definition found in psychology, and not the definition found in some lexicon. In psychology conscientiousness is only about the organized and responsible part.

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#46

Post by rsfayez » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

trabant00 wrote: post #3

> “I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situation…

well put!

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#47

Post by brigandish » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:23 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #45

brigandish wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can read, thanks. In fact, we all can. Why are you continuing to argue? The definition is right there in black and white, I'm willing to bet that no one here is interested in semantic arguments for their own sake nor for the sake of your ego so please don't continue. Wow, arguing with the Oxford English dictionary …

But in the context of the article we are talking about the definition found in psychology, and not the definition found in some lexicon. In psychology conscientiousness is only about the organized and responsible part.

If that is so, then that should have been your response. As it is, this is found in the article:

> Yasseen worked hard and he cared about his work. In Arabic, we would say Yasseen had Dhameer—“a conscience.”

That's a clue as to why conscientiouness is also listed in that dictionary defintion as a derivative - one precedes the other.

> Bringing a conscience to your work means working conscientiously—as Dr. George Simon put it, “Conscientiousness is mindfulness guided by conscience.”

That's enough of this for me.

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#48

Post by rowanG077 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

float4 wrote: post #5

> I realized that most of them had a unique “theory of hiring”—some “secret ingredient” I watched an interview with Jordan Peterson (yeah, I know...) a few years back, and he stated that the two big predictors for success in the workplace are intelligence and conscientiousness, so at the very least this isn't a secret ingredient.

I mean the man holds some very controversial views. But that doesn't mean you can just discount everything he says.

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#49

Post by zepto » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #44

zepto wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn’t. It violates definition 2.

Generally, when people talk about conscientiousness in this sense (certainly the article), they're talking about the psychological construct (i.e. a named pattern of correlations that emerges from self report questionnaire analysis) rather than the dictionary definition.

Sure, but the two are not neatly separated.

Re: Hiring for conscientiousness (2019)

#50

Post by testmasterflex » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 8:25 PM UTC

Gareth321 wrote: post #39

rr808 wrote: post #18

I've always been conscientious and it really backfired. When something breaks at 2am they call me to fix. They never call the recently hired slick-talking guru who experiments with the latest cool technology but can't actually deliver anything and who will leave before the end of the year anyway.

Don't feel bad. Conscientious people earn more because people like them more. Just remember to negotiate well, because conscientious people often feel bad about negotiating hard. You shouldn't feel bad about asking for solid compensation for your work. Especially if you're getting up at 2am.

I don’t think agreeableness (the inability to negotiate for yourself to have more than others) correlates to conscientiousness.