In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal • Hacker News Board

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#251

Post by gwern » Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 10:25 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #248

HelloMcFly wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence for that? I've worked on cognitive ability testing as it related to workplace performance, and have never seen anything that deviated dramatically from a normal distribution, especially at the high end.

Google [iq fat tails] and there're a bunch of articles on it (and one comment I wrote here about 4 years ago). The original data source for most of the articles is Terman's 1921 study of high-IQ people; they've plotted out the observed frequency of Terman's data against a normal distribution and found that it deviated markedly after about 3-4 SD. Some additional Googling seems to have found some other independent stu…

> other papers I've read indicate that IQ correlates with life outcomes until an IQ of about 140, and then appears completely uncorrelated.

Cites? The papers I've read, from the Terman study and the SMPY kids, don't show that.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#252

Post by gwern » Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 10:30 PM UTC

drgath wrote: post #160

raldi wrote: post #130

I've never seen any citation that Google ever used these kinds of question. Especially the idiotic one about pushing a car to a hotel. I think it was just an urban legend and a good piece of linkbait. There must be thousands of people on HN who interviewed at Google over the years. Did anyone ever get a question like this?

From the article > "On the hiring side, we found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time" That implies Google has some data to back it up, whether they themselves previously asked those types of questions, or they derived it from some other means. Either way, they aren't doing themselves any favors to dispel that urban legend. Most reading that will just assume they used to ask brainteasers, but no longer.

Yes, it's a rather strange objection to make... How could Google possibly use data on its employees to disprove that brainteasers work - if they weren't using brainteasers at some point?

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#253

Post by donohoe » Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 10:43 PM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #250

donohoe wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that a bit disingenuous on the part of the HN moderators. I still maintain that the piece was original. It was based on (and expanded on) one of the eight points made within an NYT article. To me "In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal" could not describe the same article as "Google admits those infamous brainteasers were completely useless for hiring". Even the headlines indicate two separate di…

Since your question is serious, here's one serious answer. The article is really two (or three, depending how you count them) pieces of blogspam spliced together with a linkbait title on top. So while it's true that it doesn't draw exclusively on the NYT piece, that doesn't make it original, because everything else is cribbed too. Isn't it?

I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

First, lets be clear on what "blogspam" is:

  blogspam also has another meaning, namely the 
  post of a blogger who creates no-value-added posts
  to submit them to other sites.) It is done by
  posting (usually automatically) random comments
  or promoting commercial services to blogs, wikis,
  guestbooks, or other publicly accessible online
  discussion boards. Any web application that
  accepts and displays hyperlinks submitted by 
  visitors may be a target.

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

So, while that doesn't address you argument lets call a spade a spade. You may not like the post but that doesn't make it "blogspam".

(You could argue that terms evolve and thats fair enough.)

Second, the headline "Google admits those infamous brainteasers were completely useless for hiring" doesn't strike me as a typical "linkbait title".

Regardless - I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you - but I did want to understand better.

Maybe its ironic then that the NYTimes links to our post from here...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/todays-scuttlebot-t...

I don't take that as some sort of indication that I'm right etc but definitely gave me pause.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#254

Post by lancewiggs » Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 10:43 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #147

donohoe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We built Quartz to be as distraction free as possible - mind telling me what the "cruft" is?

Mobile view can't be disabled, on Android stock browser at least. That means I can't zoom out and read the text at the much smaller size and higher info density I prefer.

On my iPad I had a similar problem - unable to zoom in or out. The site takes control away from the reader.

Medium.com seem to be doing everything right.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#255

Post by Alex3917 » Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 10:56 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #222

themstheones wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are approximately 7 people on earth with an IQ of 190 or higher, so I'm calling bullshit on that requirement.

I've seen this misconception twice on the thread now, so I'm calling it out: IQ is not normally distributed. It has fat tails: the extreme ends of the distribution are much more common than a normal distribution would suggest. Some quick Googling indicated that Terman's data on high-IQ people (1921) showed IQs at 4 SDs (160ish) are about 15x more common than a Gaussian would predict, while at 5+ SDs (175-200ish) they…

> IQ is not normally distributed.

IQ is actually normally distributed by definition. Actual intelligence, if such a thing exists, may not be. The reason for Terman's finding is that there aren't any IQ tests that are valid for people with extremely high IQ.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#256

Post by lancewiggs » Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 10:59 PM UTC

dpritchett wrote: post #69

lancewiggs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case this is lifted in part out of the McKinsey interview play book. A behavioural interview and a case study, with a resume review frost up. Keeping the case studies consistent across a set of interviewees for the best calibration. Making them realistic problems rather than academic exercises or quizzes means multiple paths can be taken to a variety of right answers. Laszlo and many others inside his area a…

As a developer I've never heard good things about McKinsey. Can you tell us your perspective on their value proposition and the relevance of their hiring methodology? The best I've heard about them is that they provide political cover for executive agendas that might not play well absent validation from a third party with some academic credentials.

McKinsey don't operate above the radar, but are responsible for helping with an incredible number of major corporate decisions across the world.

Recruitment and development is McKinsey's core advantage. They attract and retain incredible talent from all sets of places.

Teams work with the top clients - the CEO and team as well as high flyers at more junior levels. Things get done extraordinarily quickly. And well. But make sure that the internal team is up to scratch, and that there is that mandate from the top.

There is no prescription for how to deliver a project, beyond the hypotheses approach.

There is an obligation to dissent, and a client-first mandate. When enforced well the client gets what they need to hear, not want they want to hear. High quality consultants don't want to work on projects justifying dumb decisions - and can choose not to.

Use McKinsey and other consultants to help with new issues, not business as usual. They are fantastic for quickly understanding and assessing important questions of strategy, for mergers and acquisitions, organisational design and so on. They help understand the context and set the new agenda, or validate the old one. Generally clients simply don't have enough internal capacity to perform this work alone.

Use them, decide what to do and start doing it - and then get rid of them. Consultants that are camping at a client are in effect wildly expensive employees.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#257

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 11:05 PM UTC

donohoe wrote: post #253

gruseom wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since your question is serious, here's one serious answer. The article is really two (or three, depending how you count them) pieces of blogspam spliced together with a linkbait title on top. So while it's true that it doesn't draw exclusively on the NYT piece, that doesn't make it original, because everything else is cribbed too. Isn't it?

I appreciate you taking the time to answer. First, lets be clear on what "blogspam" is: blogspam also has another meaning, namely the post of a blogger who creates no-value-added posts to submit them to other sites.) It is done by posting (usually automatically) random comments or promoting commercial services to blogs, wikis, guestbooks, or other publicly accessible online discussion boards. Any web application that…

For what it's worth: There are much worse examples of blogspam posted to HN, so it's kind of frustrating to see this thread derailed.

I'm not making any comment on Quartz, because I haven't seen enough to form an opinion.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#258

Post by nostrademons » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 12:01 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #255

nostrademons wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this misconception twice on the thread now, so I'm calling it out: IQ is not normally distributed. It has fat tails: the extreme ends of the distribution are much more common than a normal distribution would suggest. Some quick Googling indicated that Terman's data on high-IQ people (1921) showed IQs at 4 SDs (160ish) are about 15x more common than a Gaussian would predict, while at 5+ SDs (175-200ish) they…

> IQ is not normally distributed. IQ is actually normally distributed by definition. Actual intelligence, if such a thing exists, may not be. The reason for Terman's finding is that there aren't any IQ tests that are valid for people with extremely high IQ.

Then you get into "What's the definition of IQ?" You could argue that IQ is a theoretical construct that's defined to average 100 with a standard deviation of 15 - but then, if you can't measure it with any tests, and when you do try to measure it the tests come up with different numbers, what's the point?

In my physics courses, my professors were always very careful to stress that "If the theory says one thing and the data says another, it's the theory that needs to change." (Well, unless it's a student lab report that measures the speed of light as different from the commonly accepted value. ;-))

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#259

Post by Retric » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 12:01 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #220

Retric wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking for people with high IQ's with the right background is basically a waste of time. There are plenty of ways to define IQ's but 160 is around 1 in 30,000 and there are only something like ~200 graduating highschool each year. If 5 percent of them study programming you looking a say 10 new genius programmers every year. And plenty of them avoid SV for reasons as simple as the limited dating pool. The simple trut…

IQ has fat tails: the extreme ends of the distribution are much more common than a bell curve would predict.

IQ by definition fits the bell curve. A given normalized IQ test is only good for a given rang and time period and when incorrectly interpreted outside of that range will produce excesive people with high IQ's. Also a test that's accurate +/- 10 IQ points is going to bump more people from 150 to 160 than drop people from 160 to 150 simply because there are more people at 150 than 160. Not to mention the tendency for people to pick the highest score vs the average.

PS: Often the limit is as low as 135.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#260

Post by ArekDymalski » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 12:14 AM UTC

hkmurakami wrote: post #18

edent wrote: post #3

The original article - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-huntin... Distraction free reading and without all the annoying cruft of Quartz. Fascinating use of "Big Data" to cut through the bullshit. Wonder if it will change anything. I suspect the "tough" interview plays well into a company's PR.

>I suspect the "tough" interview plays well into a company's PR. from: "The trick Max Levchin used to hire the best engineers at PayPal" Levchin realized the best engineers wanted to be challenged both in their jobs and in the interview process. “We cultivated a very public culture of being incredibly hard to get in. Even though it was actually very hard to get good people to even interview, we made a point of broadc…

This story is a great example of what happens if you mix up employer branding with recruitment process. Attracting talent is one thing, while defining what actually "talent" means for your company (in terms of competencies required for the job) and how to measure it - now that's completely different story. In an extreme case you can end up with ultra-smart, over-qualified people who will be disappointed by the boring, uninspiring every-day tasks they're assigned to. The goal of recruitment is not to get "the best people", but to get the people who will consistently deliver business results.