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

Inside the Mirrortocracy

carlos.bueno.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 214 posts

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#121

Post by facepalm »

coriny wrote: post #98
facepalm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a handwavy reply (look up the research). I know the kind of research, and it is very hard to separate the ideologically motivated one from the worthwhile ones. "Just hire good professional people, surely?" So why have any hiring process at all, if it doesn't matter who works for/with you? Some people realize they spend most of their waking hours at work, so they want to get along with the people they work…

I don't know what's going on with the 'reply' button, but I don't seem to be able to reply to your latest comments. Firstly, "google it", well actually "google scholar" it. Go to the public research body rather than the general internet and spend some time finding some reviews (I mean proper peer-reviewed reviews), look for ones that are highly cited and ~5-10 years old. Then start following up, with standard procedu…

If you went through the Google Scholar thing, haven't you saved some articles you approved of? Why not point me directly to it? I don't really have time to become an expert in this by dozens of articles.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#122

Post by dragonwriter »

facepalm wrote: post #111
opendais wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said they should be obligated to hire them. It is really inefficient to pick IT, UX, Sysadmin, etc. talent based on whether they drink or not. So I'm assuming they are oblivious.

I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Water, if nothing else?

> Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar?

Yes, and surely you can socialize in a brothel without actually engaging in their primary service, but that doesn't mean that holding part of a job interview there wouldn't create a differentially hostile environment to (among others) people who have religious objections to prostitution.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#123

Post by opendais »

fooqux wrote: post #113
danielweber wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sufficiently aggressive lawyer just hasn't gone after them, yet. Which, for all the nonsense this post points out, might end up being a net negative for our industry. I'd like these jokers to at least worry a little bit about it in order to stop us from entering that world.

Well, it doesn't have as much to do with aggression as it does with payouts. The average startup doesn't have enough capital (or any revenue to speak of) to make it worth a lawyer's time. Once a company gets bigger, the stakes change and they have to be much more careful in their hiring practices lest they tempt the flock of lawyers circling overhead.

Is there really a statute of limitations on this sort of thing? I wonder if a lawyer can just wait 2-3 years for them to grow / get enough VC money to be a viable target.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#124

Post by danielweber »

facepalm wrote: post #119
danielweber wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to make a lot more sense to judge people based on the things you know. So do that. Stop pretending you are a psychologist, and capable of figuring out what kind of personality is good at this job, because those are things you don't know. Instead, give work-sample tests. Those are something you can know. You can look at the results the person emits. Then hire based on that. Personality only needs basic things…

So you would also say that it is best to leave all hiring to a computer, as I suggested in another comment (to summarize all comments I received)? After all, human perceptions seems to be too flawed? A computer can administer a psychological test, and it can administer a programming test. Problem solved? Other than that, again: you can only act based on the things you know. So the conclusion is nobody is qualified to…

"I only know how to do ad-hoc personality tests, so ad-hoc personality tests must be how I can hire."

The very practical advise is to deliver a work-sample test. Tell the person exactly what you are looking for up-front("we want this code to run as fast as possible" versus "we want this code to be very readable") and then measure on what you said you looking for.

If you do a lot of code maintenance, pull up a piece of your code with a bug and have the candidate hind it. If you do a lot of OOP, describe a recent problem and have him design the class.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#125

Post by facepalm »

opendais wrote: post #120
facepalm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Water, if nothing else?

> I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Right now, IT is a strong labor environment [e.g. Programmers get multiple offers if they look for a job and pick the best/highest one]. If you are so foolish as to make "drinking" a requirement, that means you are reducing the pool and raising the cost of the employee. You are fr…

"That tends to be a feedback cycle that causes them to slowly and inevitably beat you in a capitalist society."

Exactly! That's how it should be. Saying you should do this or that is rather pointless. The hard evidence is success and failure.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#126

Post by ceejayoz »

x0x0 wrote: post #2

Carlos sounds like a wanker who spends too much time reading trust fund assholes on gawker bitch (and lie! Hi Sam) about startups. Way over here in reality: I've worked for 6 startups, some you've heard of, and some you haven't. At the smallest I was employee 6; at the largest ~60. Now, I'm not claiming I've never seen unprofessional behavior, but 1 - the interview process has been pretty obvious. Yes, I've grabbed d…

Ah, the good old "this hasn't happened to me so it doesn't happen" argument.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#127

Post by jiggy2011 »

rayiner wrote: post #112
facepalm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Water, if nothing else?

Many people do not drink for religious reasons. You are not obligated to hire people who drink, but by virtue of employment discrimination laws, you are obligated not to discriminate against women and minorities in hiring.

Do a much lower percentage of (non pregnant) women drink? If that's true I certainly never noticed it. But I'm not from the US.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#128

Post by [deleted] »

facepalm wrote: post #125
opendais wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Right now, IT is a strong labor environment [e.g. Programmers get multiple offers if they look for a job and pick the best/highest one]. If you are so foolish as to make "drinking" a requirement, that means you are reducing the pool and raising the cost of the employee. You are fr…

"That tends to be a feedback cycle that causes them to slowly and inevitably beat you in a capitalist society." Exactly! That's how it should be. Saying you should do this or that is rather pointless. The hard evidence is success and failure.

[deleted]

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#129

Post by JVIDEL »

I think the article makes a mistake with its use of the word "diversity" here since these days the common use its ingrained more as a matter of race/gender and not so much opinions, and really you can find plenty of groups with that idea of diversity where everyone thinks the same and there's no debate whatsoever.

The word OP is looking for is groupthink, and the problem he's describing starts with deindividuation, the process when the group cohesiveness takes priority over individual freedom of expression.

And well the problem with this "mirrortocracy" (which is just a new word to describe Nepotism) is the typical conundrum of " I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it", basically the problem wont be solved until the number of people trying to enter the inner circle becomes smaller than the number of people trying to tear it down. But the reward for those who do make it is so high most individuals would rather live in what's essentially a tragedy of the commons than a place where there is more equality at the expense of a much lower chance of "making it big".

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#130

Post by facepalm »

dragonwriter wrote: post #122
facepalm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Water, if nothing else?

> Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Yes, and surely you can socialize in a brothel without actually engaging in their primary service, but that doesn't mean that holding part of a job interview there wouldn't create a differentially hostile environment to (among others) people who have religious objections to prostitution.

Oh dear, if you want to accommodate for all religious preferences, it will become tricky soon. What if some religious person thinks homosexuals are bound for hell and they will be contaminated if they work alongside them?

Seems like a real problem to me: either you discriminate against the religious person, or you discriminate against the homosexual, can't have them both.

In fact if you think requiring drinking is discriminating, your are discriminating against the people who drink. There is just no way to get it right. What if the company owner is religious and doesn't want to hire people who drink for religious reasons - would that be better/OK?

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me - better to discard all the PC bullshit and go for what you really want. Honestly, personally I'd prefer to have colleagues who are not very religious. Maybe the law forbids screening for that, but I still think it is a sensible preference to have. (I am not currently hiring anybody, so I hope I am allowed to say that...).

Post reply on HN