361–370 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, no?
I don't think this is a question with a yes/no answer? If you apply for a role that involves writing Rust and can't demonstrate the ability to solve problems in Rust, you won't make it far. But we don't even collect resumes, so you get to make that call for yourself; we don't divine it from signs and sigils.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should someone’s present self be defined by things entirely out of their control (e.g. childhood trauma)? You seem to assume that “obnoxious people” and “traumatic backstories” go hand-in-hand; on the contrary, some of the most obnoxious people are those who have never faced anything in their lives other than minor and routine inconveniences. Neither person is inherently superior to the other, I’m just saying tha…
You were the one to make the link between "charming people", good childhoods and lack of "yucky problems". And, while I would agree that there is a strong correlation, it's true that it's not perfect. Obviously performance is also a critical factor but your comment gave me the impression that you don't see any value (or even harm) in targeting charming people without yucky problems. They do indeed sound like "perfect…
Screening for people with life stories that you/anyone deems acceptable is extremely problematic, because realistically you will never have access to deeply personal information about 90% of your coworkers. As in, you should not be forcing Janet from accounting to disclose to you that she was abused by her stepfather, because if she is a well-adjusted adult it would have absolutely no bearing on your interactions with her at a workplace
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed a trend where the lower the position, the more invasive the questions become. I think it's a power dynamic - they can ask the questions because they know the applicants are more desperate. For example, before I was an engineer, I was scraping by on odd jobs after the 2008 crash. Around that time I applied for a job at Red Robin (basically a fast food restaurant for those who don't know). One of the quest…
I hope that stuff has stopped somewhat but it was definitely all the rage during the mid-late 2000s. I applied for Best Buy GeekSquad when I was starting my career and “failed” their stupid hour long online psych eval that was probably (or should be) illegal. Considering my intelligence and the trajectory of my career they would have been lucky to have me, but I am glad I didn’t get the job, so I would say these are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first I agreed with you, but then I remembered: Where is our sensitivity, empathy and tact for the person who said that, who may have their own trauma and own issues? The reality, the beauty of human relationships is that they are between people with all these issues and dimensions, all the nuance and detail that make up human beings. In the wild, there's no laboratory people - no clean, perfect specimens in simpl…
Well said. In addition to that, I think a speaker's intended meaning is also important to consider. imo, people often take what people say literally or default to a first-instinct interpretation, rather than trying to understand what the speaker is attempting to convey. I try to interpret what people say charitably (a few of my friends think much too charitably), but I really believe that the vast majority of people…
I find that the person I'm talking to, if I treat them as if they are a*holes, act as if that was their intent the whole time. If I treat them as if they in good faith, they act that way.
It's hard to resist the flow of conversation, to not go along with the way it's framed. I think that's why people act how you treat them; I think that's why people even confess falsely to crimes - the interrogator talks to the suspect as if they did it. Other sophsticated communicators also use that intentionally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd see applicants like those that the article describes as being very desirable?
Sure, much like magic and unicorns are desirable. The kind of human they are looking for doesn't actually exist.
I wonder what sort of prospective employers might be looking for the sorts of things that this article describes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this how Fly still operates? If you're hiring Rust developers, are you open to someone who has never touched Rust in their life?
We wouldn't know if you've never touched it, only whether you can solve problems in it today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You were the one to make the link between "charming people", good childhoods and lack of "yucky problems". And, while I would agree that there is a strong correlation, it's true that it's not perfect. Obviously performance is also a critical factor but your comment gave me the impression that you don't see any value (or even harm) in targeting charming people without yucky problems. They do indeed sound like "perfect…
There isn’t a correlation. I am charming and would like to think generally pleasant to be around. But if you’re going to interrogate me about the entire life story of mine, you aren’t going to think that anymore. Screening for people with life stories that you/anyone deems acceptable is extremely problematic, because realistically you will never have access to deeply personal information about 90% of your coworkers.…
All else being equal, a person who enjoyed an idyllic childhood is typically going to be a more well-adjusted adult than someone who experienced the most depraved, violent, extreme child abuse imaginable.
I don't even have any interest in discussing the finer points with someone who completely denies the long-term effects of adverse childhood experiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
out of curiosity, do you often run into low aptitude + low drive but highly politically skilled ? do they get caught early ?
> low drive but highly politically skilled These two don't really match up, they are just driven for different things I suspect.