This is the kind of post I wish there was a downvote for on HN.
Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
11–20 of 71 posts
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#12I like to ask people about what they do in their private life. What are their hobbies. Do they have a lot going on? People who keep themselves busy tend to have a strong motor and usually apply that to their work life as well. Similarly, people don't do much of anything outside of work can bring this habit into the workplace.
"In my free time I try to keep my house clean enough so that the kids don't manage to vibrationally attune it to the elemental plane of trash."
"Oh, was that not what you wanted me to say?"
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#13"Dogshit developers get paid 50k to start. Good ones are over 100k. You just have to have actual skills."
Because how much someone makes determines if they're dogshit or not.
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#14> Don't look for talent Isn't talent the ability to do things well? Or maybe I lack a nuanced definition of "talent". Or maybe the headline is trying to be sensational.
Indeed; one of my maxims is "Do not do something if you cannot do it well", and I still think it's a good one as long as you adjust that for things like Time to Market (a better thing too late is not really "better", or insert standard Patton quote; military history is useful to learn for striking this balance) and "adequate" especially for those things that must be done but would otherwise not get done at all.
But it's implicit in the essay, and I take the headline as not so "sensational" since it's advocating a particular primary focus that's different from a very common and irrelevant one (at least as the primary focus).
I've been told this is one of the things MIT looks for in undergraduate applications, "projects" as they put it, but basically evidence that this is someone who does stuff (which I was fortunate to be able to provide in my application). Which of course is one of the reasons MIT has such a reputation, a strong part of the Zeitgeist is doing things.
To reify that, I think Richard Feynman, Class of '39, first got interested in the Connection Machine when Danny Hillis was visiting Caltech and they ensconced themselves for a week or so discussing it. However, when he showed up to help the new company (there's an exposition of this that's commonly linked to on HN), things were in chaos, and the only thing they could think of right then was to send him to get office supplies. Which he was entirely happy to do, Nobel Prize winner or not.
Hmmm, come to think of it, I've had casual interactions with a couple of Nobelist biologists while studying there, one teaching a class, one was my undergraduate adviser for a term before I switched majors, and they gave off the standard "get things done" vibe, you wouldn't have any idea they'd gotten the prize without looking at their bios.
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#15I read this whole post before realizing it was written by that prick, Tucker Max. I wish I could unread it.
I don't like X, therefore I won't consider X's arguments.
That strategy seems like a great way to never learn anything except whatever confirms your own biases.
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#16I wonder how that compares to these results:
http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/selecting-tal...
My gut reaction is that there is sample restriction going on: that there is a minimum intelligence create a large volume of coherent software. Additionally, there are a number of practices that are illegal in the US (not sure about other countries) like structured interviews, so the list of things that companies can use is somewhat limited.
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#17The other day I saw a "looking for technical partner" ad in craigslist by someone who listed "I'm creative" as one of the assets they would be bringing to the partnership. It made me think about the word "creative". I thought to myself, if I was considering teaming up with this person I would asked them: "What have you created?"
Often, people confuse swirling ideas seeking form in their head for creativity.
I think the other situation is more common: smart people with swirling unique thoughts keep them hidden because they don't consider themselves creative.
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#18I read this whole post before realizing it was written by that prick, Tucker Max. I wish I could unread it.
I don't like X, therefore I won't consider X's arguments. That strategy seems like a great way to never learn anything except whatever confirms your own biases.
I didn't say he wasn't right about this. Just regret that I provided traffic to his site.
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#19I find this particularly tingling because Tucker himself is a perfect example of doing things. He gets a lot of flak from people calling him a poor writer and lambasting him for writing about some of the "finer" topics in life. Yet, he is a New York Times bestselling author, and his detractors are not.
"he is a New York Times bestselling author, and his detractors are not."
Then again, his book makes not being a bestselling author seem like an accomplishment.
Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things
#20I like to ask people about what they do in their private life. What are their hobbies. Do they have a lot going on? People who keep themselves busy tend to have a strong motor and usually apply that to their work life as well. Similarly, people don't do much of anything outside of work can bring this habit into the workplace.
"In my free time I try to keep my house clean enough so that the kids don't manage to vibrationally attune it to the elemental plane of trash." "Oh, was that not what you wanted me to say?"
That isn't the same as "a person who doesn't do much of anything".
I think it's more in the spirit of "what hobbies do you have" / "what kind of activities do you like".