621–630 of 748 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn’t defined that way, but yes it is strong evidence that people from that society are less trustworthy. People are less trusting when others are more likely to cheat them.
"Strong evidence" = your feelings?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read these comments not as a defense of cheating, but as resignation that "This is just how the world is." Your view is right at home in a Star Trek The Next Generation world where everyone's needs are met and people act ethically, with good intentions and are in return treated fairly. A civilized, meritocratic world that doesn't exist. Like it or not, we live in a zero-sum dog-eat-dog world that pits neighbors aga…
Kirk cheated in the Kobayashi Maru ;)
Reading some of the comments in this thread I'm surprised. It seems that a substantial number of people think one of the following: a.) cheating on interviews is ok, because interviews don't reflect the actual job b.) this is acceptable because the promotion process is distinct from the interview process or c.) that the cheaters clearly are skilled after all because of all their success, as evidenced by being promote…
> that it isn't inherent to the discipline of technology itself anymore Sorry to say, but it never was. Anti-cheaters have always been the extreme minority in every profession since the dawn of man.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and be “that guy”. But in my experience, there’s a big difference between perspectives on cheating in the US vs perspectives in… let’s just say broadly… “some other nations”. I say this as an American who has lived overseas much of my life and, lest you think I’m just a flag waving parrot for the US, prob prefer living overseas and am more than willing to criticize the heck out of t…
> there’s a big difference between perspectives Here's my take... The difference between the United States and other countries is how we internalize things. We're very much guilt or shame driven because of the heavy influences of puritanical, fundamentalist, and catholic religions. It's not that Americans don't cheat/indulge/whatever, it's that they feel bad about doing it. And that doesn't stop Americans from doing…
There are things in my life I'd rather lie about, but I don't because I never learned to lie convincingly. The same with cheating. Figuring out how to cheat on a test/interview sounds like a way more effortful and stressful experience than acting honestly (I shudder to imagine how it compounds imposter syndrome).
Imo "moving" to Florida (and similar tactics) got normalized, so it's easier for people to learn how to do it from a friend etc. so they do it more. No moralizing necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things can be true at the same time. There is a lot of cheating in america, but nowhere near as much as in low-trust countries. fwiw - I think Americans value integrity a lot more than most other places, and academic cheating is not nearly as common.
> Two things can be true at the same time. Of course, but the commenter I replied to made a specific statement, first sentence, making it sound to my reading - and I don't think I'm reading something into it that isn't meant to be there? - as if it's a lot less in the US. But even a little bit of searching, and every single time the topic comes up here, which usually is for higher education so I'm not making any stat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can’t believe I have to state this explicitly, but I am on Hacker News, after all-- scraping the bottom of the barrel here. It is absolutely reasonable to ask people to reconsider their prejudices. Your line of thought does nothing but reinforce people’s existing biases without leaving room for the nuance of social context. Racists misuse statistics all the time to justify their awfulness. Consider whether you’re rea…
I'll stick up for btilly here - I don't think you've read his comment fairly, and instead are criticizing something he didn't say. He didn't say, or imply, that people shouldn't be asked to reconsider their prejudices. Of course they (or we, rather) should. This is covered by the HN guidelines, which ask: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier t…
In any case, thanks for taking the time to offer a more charitable perspective on the comment I responded to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>brutally honest about my own knowledge and capabilities Is this a lack of confidence? > I've gotten passed over for jobs and promotions because I don't do a good enough job of 'selling' my experience. Selling your experience IS an important skill. Other factors may have played a part too. > successful software engineers I've met also have the ability to bullshit Is it their bullshit that gets them to be successful?…
Maybe 'bullshitting' was too strong of a word. I was always raised that you don't brag about yourself, you don't take credit for things you didn't really do, and you don't over promise and under deliver. As I've gained experience, I've learned that people can take self deprecating things as gospel and as a worker it's your job to talk up your abilities and invitations to identify 'things you can improve' have to be s…
There are those who constantly put in overtime to put out fires that they created. To management, these seem like hard-working, dedicated folks. Meanwhile those who design things well, don't have fires to put out, and leave on-time every day seem lazy. All too often the first group is given praise instead of the second group.
This is a point of unfairness that is rampant in the industry. I don't know of any way to solve it, besides each person being their own promoter, hype man, sales man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
Business has always been about the greater benefit. Not solely (or primarily, from the business owner's perspective) about that, of course, but that aspect is the entire reason why government puts so much time, effort, and money into supporting business activities. If business is not at least in part about the greater benefit, then we need to stop wasting so many resources supporting it.
Yes, it's fundamentally unfair to those interviewees who don't cheat. And the process is broken. However, the conclusion this person reaches - we must conduct these broken interviews in person so the cheaters can't cheat - is the wrong one. Look at it from the point of view of the hiring company now, not the interviewer. They got a person who was good enough (based on the merits of their actual work, not interview pe…
It's also possible the company is setting themselves up for ethics/regulatory issues by selecting for individuals willing to cheat. I guess this should be no surprise since the culture at Amazon already sucks.