He got 1%, we can't hire him • Hacker News Board

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#471

Post by hoka » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:53 PM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #441

hoka wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An anecdote, for sure, but a friend of mine just failed a Google interview for not knowing 'Dalvik' was the name of the Android VM, despite knowing it was stack-based and used, among other things, to avoid licensing fees. The non-technical interviewer saw that his answer to the trivia question was wrong, and that concluded the interview. It's possible that trivia question was the straw that broke the camel's back, bu…

But isn't Dalvik register-based, not stack-based? Missing the name could be excusable, while getting the architecture wrong might have been a relevant factor.

Yeah, mistype on my end. He answered it correctly :-)

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#472

Post by lutusp » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #462

lutusp wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're trying to say psychology is not an exact science I agree. It's not a science at all. Sciences make observations, then craft generalizing theories to explain the observations, then test the theories in unrelated contexts, then discard those theories that fail. This is certainly not how psychology works. In psychology, it's commonplace to see a therapy for a disease whose existence hasn't yet been establish…

You appear to be suffering from a misapprehension. Psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology Psychiatry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry Note the not to be confused with introduction on Wikipedia. They are quite different, and while I agree that DSM-5 was a disgrace, that was somewhat inevitable given the commercial pressures involved. Its worth noting that I agree with your major point, but it appl…

> You appear to be suffering from a misapprehension.

Both are studies of the mind. Psychiatrists are psychologists with an M.D. degree.

Psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Quote: "an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors"

Psychiatry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry

Quote: "the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders."

See the word "mental" in both definitions? Neither studies the brain, neither is scientific, and the distinction between them is more a matter of history than topic.

I ask that you think about what you're saying. If human psychology were a science, then its two major subfields, psychiatry and psychology (there are actually 54, but never mind), would be looked on as intimately related to human psychology and to each other.

Would you argue that cosmology and particle physics aren't related to each other because they study different things, i.e. one studies the universe at the largest possible scale and the other at the smallest? Most scientists would disagree because these two fields rely on physics and physical theory for their scientific standing.

> but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology.

False. Both psychiatry and psychology rely on the DSM as a diagnostic guide.

Link: http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm

Title: "DSM"

Quote: "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States ... It can be used by a wide range of health and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors. "

> I agree with your major point, but it applies to psychiatry (more specifically, the DSM) rather than to psychology.

On the contrary, it applies to both, because both psychiatry and psychology depend on the DSM's imagined authority for diagnosis and treatment guidance.

If the DSM were to suddenly disappear, psychologists would have no therapeutic guidebook. That wouldn't stop them, of course, but it would be disrupting and embarrassing.

If human psychology were a science, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because psychiatry and psychology would be looked on as branches of a science with more similarities than differences, just as with cosmology and particle physics.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#473

Post by HelloMcFly » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:55 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #389

LaGrange wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, spotting and weeding out sociopaths is one of the points. I know that you may believe that you're a good judge of character, but actually a smart sociopath (not the norm, btw) is likely to be able to game you just as easily as the test.

Well, my main objection is to hiring people on the basis of their character, whether it's with a test or not. Assess for whether or not the person can do the job and make you a profit.

If one's character meaningfully predicts job performance on top of whatever other methods you are using, then assessing on their character is the same as assessing on whether or not they can do they job (or at least, how well they can do it). Integrity tests have demonstrated this in many contexts, even taking into account the possibility of faking.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#474

Post by stocktradr » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:56 PM UTC

I'll throw my hat in the ring on this one. Just applied to a job and got a response saying:

"Thank you for your interest in the ! Your resume appears to have many of the relevant skills we are looking for in our open * position. Please tell us more information about yourself and attach your resume. We look forward to scheduling an interview."

I reply back and this is what I get:

"...We have had an impressive response to our ad for our open position. At this time, candidates with backgrounds closer matching our job description are being considered."

So, got approved by one HR rep, then rejected by the next. It really frustrates me knowing that I have the qualifications and yet, for whatever "undisclosed" reason, I can't even just get an interview. The world of getting hired....

Edit - blanked out company name so that is why it reads odd.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#475

Post by lutusp » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #465

GFischer wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some psychologists that actually try to be scientific (my GF is doing a postgraduate degree in neuropsychology). Unfortunately, they're overwhelmed by the majority, which are full of pseudoscience. Maybe the more rigorous ones should change their titles, not to be associated with standard "psychologists" anymore?

They could call themselves, cognitive scientists, or behavioural economists, or something! \snark.

> They could call themselves, cognitive scientists, or behavioural economists, or something!

Yep. I'm hearing "cognitive neuroscientist" more often, even though those so named haven't changed their practice and are still psychologists.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#476

Post by HelloMcFly » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:02 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #438

tptacek wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds good in theory, but in reality HR people are not especially skilled in picking up on the character issues that matter to teams; moreover, when you instruct the HR team that their role in the process is to screen for this kind of stuff, you end up with HR people creating sporadic roadblocks for hiring. Rayiner is absolutely 100% right about this. The real role of HR people is tax forms and health insurance…

The real role of HR people is tax forms and health insurance, and little else. Well said. And their role definitely should not include administering bullshit voodoo science "psychometric evaluations" and making any decisions based on them.

Typical "those guys know nuthin and we got it all figured out" comment that seems all too common on Hacker News. Calling psychometric evaluations voodoo is akin to doubting climate change or casting a wary eye on vaccines. The evidence, methodological rigor, and results are there for all to see, but it just doesn't mesh with your gut feeling. Of all the things in the field of psychology to call voodoo, this is almost certainly the least deserving.

Like everything, competent implementation and use are key, so I'm sure you have had experiences that give you reasons to doubt their efficacy. But every field suffers from some form of that in some way or another, and the degree of transparency into the process varies greatly.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#477

Post by hga » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:04 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #439

tptacek wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds good in theory, but in reality HR people are not especially skilled in picking up on the character issues that matter to teams; moreover, when you instruct the HR team that their role in the process is to screen for this kind of stuff, you end up with HR people creating sporadic roadblocks for hiring. Rayiner is absolutely 100% right about this. The real role of HR people is tax forms and health insurance…

I don't disagree with Rayiner here, I'm just sharing how I've seen this sort of stuff get put into place. When you ask "How the hell did HR get to have veto power over hires?", I have found more often than not there is a story of "that guy" or "that gal" who got through the "old process" which is now some legendary part of the company history.

One thing I try to determine about startups is their ability to fire people.

Lots of the problems you mentioned sound like they were in part due to the company finding that difficult, and of course it should be noted that any process like this, about humans and done by humans, is going to have errors on occasion. The real trick is realizing and correcting them.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#478

Post by radiusq » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #421

ChuckMcM wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is absolutely zero reason why HR/recruiting people should have final say on a candidate. None. It should be inconceivable, at a technical company, to hand over that much hiring power to a non-technical person." And yet they often do. Consider that for a moment and wonder why it is so common, especially in technical companies. What I have found over the years is that technical people hire people they think are…

This sounds good in theory, but in reality HR people are not especially skilled in picking up on the character issues that matter to teams; moreover, when you instruct the HR team that their role in the process is to screen for this kind of stuff, you end up with HR people creating sporadic roadblocks for hiring. Rayiner is absolutely 100% right about this. The real role of HR people is tax forms and health insurance…

The problem is many folks in HR believe [wrongly] they are trained to pick up on these things. This is because they know they don't have anything else to contribute to the process, therefore come up with some 'soft skill' thats hard to verify to justify their existence.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#479

Post by ballard » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:15 PM UTC

LaGrange wrote: post #355

foobarbazqux wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with psychometric tests is that they're easy to game by answering them with the values the company is almost certainly looking for. Any company issuing a psychometric test is looking for obedience, hard work, discipline, profit orientation, civility, non-threatening creativity, etc. etc. etc. So what you get by discouraging a broad diversity of personalities is a mix of people who actually have those spec…

Actually, spotting and weeding out sociopaths is one of the points. I know that you may believe that you're a good judge of character, but actually a smart sociopath (not the norm, btw) is likely to be able to game you just as easily as the test.

There are three buckets of people you don't want to hire:

  - helpless
  - depressed
  - jerks

In my subjective experience:

The top one has about %50 shot of being a character flaw, eg, no amount of confidence-building will help.

The middle one has the most hope, if the talent potential is significant. The best in the field can be painfully shy as well as depressed. The problem is that depression (not shyness) hurts morale. [1]

The last has a %75 chance of being a lost cause. Impossible to manage as they are incredibly disruptive to morale and productivity. [2] Their survival is often linked to mastery of politics, which inculcates their position.

[1] http://m.fastcoexist.com/1679208/a-sad-worker-is-a-bad-worke...

[2] The No *sshole Rule by Robert Sutton

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#480

Post by HelloMcFly » Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #469

HelloMcFly wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in essence. When I refer to CATs I'm talking about measures testing g ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_intelligence ). And I know it's hard to believe, but g-centric tests like cognitive ability test do a better job than other seemingly more relevant selection measures like work sample tests and assessment centers. The benefit of work sample tests, assessment centers, integrity tests, etc. is that their validity…

The difficulty I have with that article is that I don't know how the jobs in these studies map to engineering or research jobs. I'm thinking of jobs where one has accumulated close to a decade's worth of knowledge before starting. Related to this, I think it's important to consider that this correlation between g and job performance is conditioned on the fact that the person applied for the job. That sounds trivially…

You've made a good comment. I can't specifically point you to a study with research or engineering (though I know there has been some that involved academic research performance as an outcome). The finding tends to be that 1) g is more, not less, important for jobs with higher complexity and 2) job knowledge acts as a mediator between the predicted relationship of g and work performance.

You are right to think that the results would be different if the test was just given on the general population. It's an academic consideration that tends to resolve itself in the field.

And you'll never hear me, or anyone else, suggest that g should be the only predictor for just the reason you describe. Biographical data (e.g., years experience, work history) is much better first hurdle.