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

The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

refer.ly

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 242 posts

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#211

Post by xanados »

alabut wrote: post #72
jazzychad wrote: post #54

Hmm, I'm not sure I like the idea of intentionally trying to steer the candidate off on a tangent. It feels like a trap. In an interview, the interviewer literally has all the power, and saying "no" or refusing to answer a question posed by the interviewer seems rather difficult. This would be doubly hard for me since I like to teach (both my parents are teachers and I love to explain things to people so that they ca…

I'm glad you're conflicted! Because it is a trap, an intentional one meant to simulate the unintentional randomization that happens in real life at work. I'm sure we've all had that thing happen when someone threatens to accidentally scramble your work queue because they don't understand the problem domain as well as you do, so you need to be able to steer and guide the work requests that are coming your way and push…

I think this would be ok if they said upfront that this is a simulation of a meeting and so to pretend that you are someone attending the meeting, and so explicitly take it out of the context of an interview. When I've been interviewed, we are often friendly toward each other and it's not uncommon for them to just want to chat and go on tangents, especially for throwaway questions that assess fit and culture. And you wouldn't know as the interviewee if this was such a throwaway question.

Basically, no matter what reasons you have for thinking people should do the right thing, you have to keep in mind that their reference set for YOU is all the people who have interviewed them in the past, many of whom were likely dumber and less competent than you. They are going to be acting accordingly.

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#212

Post by Jd »

crag wrote: post #201
Jd wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would love to hear more about your answer to the fictional theories of psychohistory. I have not read the Foundation series in a long time, and I've never quite understood the predictive mechanism, how possible Asimov actually thought it was, or the wrinkle introduced by the Mule.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_%28fictional%29 : Psychohistory depends on the idea that, while one cannot foresee the actions of a particular individual, the laws of statistics as applied to large groups of people could predict the general flow of future events. Asimov used the analogy of a gas: an observer has great difficulty in predicting the motion of a single molecule in a gas, but can predict t…

Hmmm. But the Mule operated outside the Seldon plan.

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#213

Post by Jarihd »

>>> Here’s how I set up the question:

>>> I want you to explain something to me. Pick any topic you want: a hobby you have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything. You’ll have just 5 minutes to explain it.

I am an experienced technical guy. In case of technical interview if somebody starts away with that kind of question; i would take that in a negative way. I hate it when interviewers instead of being focused on their requirements focus on unnecessary things. As a job seeker i would like to be felt that i am required for the position; and that am not just a guy seeking money or a change in job. I would like to have the interviewer ask me questions for the job-position that i've applied; such that i feel motivated to continue; and know that the interviewer is serious about the position; and is just not filling up vacant company position.

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#214

Post by c0ff »

Jd wrote: post #203
teraflop wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the solution is specifically stated to be between 0 and infinity, and you can't surmise that the number is necessarily closer to 0. Closer to 0 than what? Infinity? By any reasonable definition, every integer is closer to 0 than infinity. I think the problem as stated is underspecified; I disagree that increasing "exponentially" (the solution your interviewer described would increase exponentially; your version is…

> By any reasonable definition, every integer is closer to 0 than infinity. Perhaps, but originally we weren't discussing 0, we are starting with an arbitrarily large number. This problem is exacerbated when you say: > I disagree that increasing "exponentially"... is always faster ... Both versions have the same worst-case running time Worst case, sure, but how do you compute average? You could take a selection of n…

From the perspective of theoretical computer science, the interviewer was correct. I'll try to sketch out why.

------------------

1. In the initial probing for the upper bound, there is no point to grow faster than 2x each time

If we double the probe each time, we'll find the upper bound in O(log N) time. Then, we'll need O(log N) additional time to find the real answer. That makes the entire algorithm O(log N).

Suppose instead, in the initial probing we grow the bound faster, say by squaring each time. We'll find the upper bound faster, but we'll still need additional O(log N) time to find the real answer. So, we didn't really make the algorithm (asymptotically) faster - it is still O(log N).

(I glossed over some details in the explanation, but even if you work out the math exactly - which is not that hard to do - the conclusion holds.)

------------------

2. There is no point starting from a number greater than 1

There is no way to pick a "good" starting number - should it be 1,000? 1,000,000,000? 10^100? (10^100)^100? You might as well start from 1. That way, you guarantee that you'll find small numbers fast and large numbers still in an asymptotically optimal time.

------------------

As someone with fairly strong theoretical computer science backgound, I can see the intended meaning behind the interviewer's question and answer. But, it is a theoretical question. There definitely are a lot of highly valuable software developers out there who couldn't answer it.

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#215

Post by Caligula »

bproctor wrote: post #204

Why can't you find out the same information about the persion by just engaging in normal conversation, asking them about their interests, and asking reasonable follow up questions? Presenting it as some kind of weird test that makes the interviewee feel awkward and suspicious is no way to conduct an interview. It says more about how bad the interviewer is.

They avoid a normal conversation because then the interviewer would not be able to be achieve a master smug rating. You need to be psychic and 'get' what direction or type of response that they expect.

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#216

Post by Caligula »

pearkes wrote: post #143

> I will ask a question early in the 5 minutes that is a complete tangent and has little to do with their goal. A star candidate will politely refuse to go down this rat hole and insist that we stay on topic. These types of "trick" questions don't allude to anything. A star candidate also wants to respect their interviewer and refusing to answer a question can be seen as disrespectful. Granted, the characteristic you…

It is a terrible way of discovering it.

It's the same as if they asked you a php question. You answer it, and then they say 'wrong!!!! the right answer is php sucks, in ruby I do it like so:...'

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#217

Post by desas »

Jd wrote: post #212
crag wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_%28fictional%29 : Psychohistory depends on the idea that, while one cannot foresee the actions of a particular individual, the laws of statistics as applied to large groups of people could predict the general flow of future events. Asimov used the analogy of a gas: an observer has great difficulty in predicting the motion of a single molecule in a gas, but can predict t…

Hmmm. But the Mule operated outside the Seldon plan.

Psychohistory involves predicting the effects of large numbers of people and assumed that single individuals could not significantly change the future of the galaxy.

Without giving too much away, The Mule was a unique being who could not have been predicted, who could significantly change the future of a whole galaxy.

The Seldon Plan did have contingencies for this kind of thing, hence the Second Foundation novel.

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#218

Post by Jd »

c0ff wrote: post #214
Jd wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By any reasonable definition, every integer is closer to 0 than infinity. Perhaps, but originally we weren't discussing 0, we are starting with an arbitrarily large number. This problem is exacerbated when you say: > I disagree that increasing "exponentially"... is always faster ... Both versions have the same worst-case running time Worst case, sure, but how do you compute average? You could take a selection of n…

From the perspective of theoretical computer science, the interviewer was correct. I'll try to sketch out why. ------------------ 1. In the initial probing for the upper bound, there is no point to grow faster than 2x each time If we double the probe each time, we'll find the upper bound in O(log N) time. Then, we'll need O(log N) additional time to find the real answer. That makes the entire algorithm O(log N). Supp…

Given that is a theoretical question that you are attempting to fit into an actual algorithm to ostensibly solve a real problem, doesn't the actual performance of the algorithm matter? I can see that within the context of theory of computer science there may not be a difference between the speed of the two algorithms, since both are "asymptotically optimal" (a term I'm not sure I entirely grok), yet within virtually any defined set of random numbers less than infinity the algorithm I provided will perform substantially faster.

I suppose I'm at a loss for words, since as a seasoned software developer without a deep background in theoretical computer science, it seems that I am being told to disregard my intuition based on experience in favor of a theoretical model that seems to ignore actual problem sets. Am I missing something?

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#219

Post by desas »

Jd wrote: post #156
crag wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran into this question at Novell in the early 90's. I answered it by giving a detailed description of Issac Asimov's [fictional] theories of Psychohistory (from Foundation). I got the job. But I doubt my answer was the reason why. But it did get chuckles from everyone in the room. I never ran into this type of question again. I kind of wish i had though. Lots more sci-fi to run through. I'm sure it predates Novell…

Would love to hear more about your answer to the fictional theories of psychohistory. I have not read the Foundation series in a long time, and I've never quite understood the predictive mechanism, how possible Asimov actually thought it was, or the wrinkle introduced by the Mule.

Interestingly enough some historians believe in the central premise of psycho-history, that the actions of a large group of people are inevitable. Ian Morris touches on it in "Why the West Rules - For Now"

Re: The Most Revealing Job Interview Question

#220

Post by CookWithMe »

How about a meta-answer?

"I am really passionate about an interview question, which I like to call the most revealing job interview question.

It’s without a doubt my favorite interview question, because it only take 5 minutes and tells me a remarkable amount about candidates. Even though it’s not a technical question per se, I still give it to every programmer I interview.

[...]

For senior positions, I will ask a question early in the 5 minutes that is a complete tangent and has little to do with their goal. A star candidate will politely refuse to go down this rat hole and insist that we stay on topic. This seems unfair since an they’re in an interview and just doing what they’re being asked. In reality though, the very same thing happens often in real work. Even mangers do not innately know what is most important about a topic, and it’s key to have confident people on the team that add focus to conversations."

Post reply on HN