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

Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

tuckermax.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#41

Post by gambogi »

nether wrote: post #35
bennyg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely. When I was in Art school I was working on a project that instead of using charcoal to create the darks on a white sheet of paper, the assignment was to use a white conte crayon to denote the light areas on a black sheet of paper. I had taken my assignment home and was working on it in my living room when a neighbor and friend of mine knocked on my door and he came in and looked at what I was doing…

Today "creative" usually refers to originality, not the act of creation. It's no worse than using "engineer" to mean computer programmer rather than someone who works on something with an engine.

Well, if we're getting our etymology on, 'engine' originally referred to any trick, device, or machine. An engineer was someone who created engines. It only took on the association with steam locomotives in the 1800s.

I would also like point out that early computers were also known as analytic engines.

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#42

Post by gambogi »

nine_k wrote: post #24
iamareyoucreat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the other situation is more common: smart people with swirling unique thoughts keep them hidden because they don't consider themselves creative.

I'm yet to meet such a person. Probably it's just uncommon in the IT crowd, which is highly open to ideas and meritocratic.

How do you know that you've never met a person who didn't share their ideas with you?

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#44

Post by Pxtl »

MaxScheiber wrote: post #2

I 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.

I'm perfectly okay with thinking that he's a terrible writer who produces absolute dreck while still respecting him for being a creative and hard-working person. He makes the art he wants to make, gets paid very well for it, is prolific, and is hard-working in his field. That deserves respect.

But his stuff is absolute crap.

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#45

Post by Pxtl »

rza wrote: post #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.

Also, that number seriously depends on market. I work in a place that's absolutely lousy for coders and 50k is pretty typical here. I'd move if I hadn't put down deep roots.

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#46

Post by mark-r »

sliverstorm wrote: post #31
_greim_ wrote: post #4

> 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.

You can boil the point of the article down to this line: no one is good at identifying talent ahead of time It isn't that you don't want talent, or that talent isn't exactly what you want all of your employees to have, but it is difficult to identify. So, the theory in the article seems to go, instead of trying to measure talent, look for other things in your workers- things that have a non-causal relationship to tal…

Maybe there's a causal relationship but it's just not obvious. See for example http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/08/quantity-always-tru...

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#47

Post by sliverstorm »

mark-r wrote: post #46
sliverstorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can boil the point of the article down to this line: no one is good at identifying talent ahead of time It isn't that you don't want talent, or that talent isn't exactly what you want all of your employees to have, but it is difficult to identify. So, the theory in the article seems to go, instead of trying to measure talent, look for other things in your workers- things that have a non-causal relationship to tal…

Maybe there's a causal relationship but it's just not obvious. See for example http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/08/quantity-always-tru...

Sure, but point being instead of trying to measure talent itself, you try to measure indirectly.

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#48

Post by farnsworth »

I can't work on projects outside of work because I work ~12 hours a day, 6-7 days a week and there's no way I can free up the long periods of time needed to create something good. I can't talk up my technical accomplishments in an interview because my job isn't particularly technically demanding or interesting, beyond the company name. I think I'm a good interviewer except when it comes to talking about anything I've actually worked on after college (1 year ago). Any tips on how to get past this?

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#49

Post by MaxScheiber »

Pxtl wrote: post #44
MaxScheiber wrote: post #2

I 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.

I'm perfectly okay with thinking that he's a terrible writer who produces absolute dreck while still respecting him for being a creative and hard-working person. He makes the art he wants to make, gets paid very well for it, is prolific, and is hard-working in his field. That deserves respect. But his stuff is absolute crap.

Tucker argues that his books teach important lessons and are deeper than just "got drunk, had sex." A common theme in a lot of his stories is that he almost always came out the loser — did something incredibly stupid, or lost a friend, or went to jail, etc. Tucker points out multiple times how immature of a person he was when these stories took place. In the end, he is the one hurt the most by his actions. He's matured and learned from his own mistakes.

They're good for a cheap laugh if you're into that sort of thing, but having read I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, I can agree that his book isn't vapid. There is a bit more to it than one would think.

Re: Don't Look for Talent, Find People Who Do Things

#50

Post by beat »

metaphorm wrote: post #34
iamareyoucreat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the other situation is more common: smart people with swirling unique thoughts keep them hidden because they don't consider themselves creative.

there are lots of smart people with good ideas. there are very few smart people with good ideas who have MADE SOMETHING based on one of those ideas.

Actually making things - finished things - is the hard part. For one, almost anything worth creating involves substantial schlep, and people lack the patience for the schlep. For another, creative people continually have new ideas, and it's very easy to drop that boring schlep in favor of the shiny new idea.

I know a ton of wonderfully creative minds, full of great ideas, that have never accomplished anything. They never finish, either due to frustration with the schlep, or by starting something new before they ever finish what they were working on. Those people are NOT good creative partners, generally. They'll flake out when the going gets tough - and if what you're doing is interesting enough to be worthwhile, it WILL get tough at some point.

Post reply on HN