To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews • Hacker News Board

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#261

Post by TrackerFF » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:23 PM UTC

unnouinceput wrote: post #128

Wasn't this tried like a year ago at one of FAANG companies and an AI was put in charge for automation process and it hired only male, mostly white, and got a huge backlash? I can't quite recall the details nor the specific company but I do recall the backlash from feminists, so somebody help with a link please.

Well, if you train a ML-based hiring system on the data you have - and all the top performers just happen to fall within a certain narrow group (for example: Male, 30s, White or Asians, College educated, etc.), then that said system will most likely predict similar individuals to be good hires - while radically different will get random, or even negative predictions.

Imagine it as a movie recommender system. If you only watch a certain type of movies, then that system is going to keep recommending similar movies to you.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#262

Post by C1sc0cat » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

silveroriole wrote: post #248

C1sc0cat wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It originally started as a Joke as far as I remember, it's now being used as short hand for certain aspects of SV life that are negative or are perceived as negative. I would bet that 90% of developers are not the classic "jock" member of a frat (which is specific to America Univerities) - we are the ones that got bullied by those types at high school. Lets be honest CS students are going to get invited to join the s…

Did you mean are or aren’t? Bullingdon is for rich future Conservatives reading PPE, not for CS students.

Sorry aren't - that's the point nerds don't get invited to those sort of elite clubs we would get oil on the furniture don't you know

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#263

Post by C1sc0cat » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

zajio1am wrote: post #219

C1sc0cat wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it is a thing - it the now accepted term for a wide range/spectrum of conditions Dyslexia Dyspraxia, ADD Aspersers.

So perhaps a better terrm would be 'neuroatypical person'?

True but its harder to say :-)

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#264

Post by dawg- » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

This brings up the same core issue as all official diversity initiatives: as soon as you talk about it, you destroy it.

When you make diversity a focus and celebrate yourself for being diverse, then the spirit of diversity is ruined. It's like something out of a zen koan. A truly diverse organization would not need to put out press releases and build its brand on being diverse, nor would they need to start official initiatives to select "diverse" employees (the very concept of an individual being "diverse" betraying the absurdity of the whole enterprise).

You are left with a shell of the real thing - it's a commitment to aesthetic diversity (even of the neuro- variety), without the spirit that diversity is meant to represent. In a situation of aesthetic diversity, people are valuable because they are "diverse", rather than from simply being people. Their adjective ends up coming first (autistic, black, queer, etc.) and, at least at the level of the organization, their humanity gets left behind.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#265

Post by azangru » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #50

wongarsu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my startup we did a round of "come in for an interview, pass FizzBuzz on a whiteboard, if you passed FizzBuzz you can come back for a 4 hour trial where you solve a small task representative of normal work in our normal work environment". We only hired students for 10-20 hours per week, so fairly low risk for both sides. My main takeaway from that was that the actual talking was close to useless for judging candid…

In my experience interviews are less effective with students because they rarely have relevant experience to talk about. At the mid level and above tests and technical questions become less useful, but they can talk about meaningful past projects. I don’t know of anything else that’s predictive without weeding great people out. PS: It’s odd, but I suspect a random process may actually work better because the great pe…

> because the great people actively looking for jobs are likely to be bad at getting them.

Why do you estimate it as "likely" (i.e. more probable than being average/good at getting the jobs)?

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#266

Post by sidlls » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

Grustaf wrote: post #246

dominicr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers. If you want to hang out with your friends and wrestle to decide coding patterns, then that's all well and good. But the second that it becomes a company that employs people it should be more mature, equal and accepting. Work is indeed not always only about output and skills, it's also about respecting each other and collaborating with d…

> I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers. Don’t you think that this should be up to the founders to decide? I would personally much prefer a frat house atmosphere than the more common geeky introvert culture that most technology companies have, but I would not like there to be laws about it.

No, I don't think it should be. Companies are afforded protections and benefits under the law. They owe society something in return for that. One of the things I think they owe is a responsibility to act in certain ways with respect to the general public, which includes their own employees.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#267

Post by blue_devil » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

K0SM0S wrote: post #68

shantly wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I had that exact one once early on. I did actually get an "if you could go back in time a couple years, what advice would you give yourself?" a little while ago, which 1) threw me, because I wasn't expecting much of that formula crap from this place, and 2) I hadn't prepped for, so I just punted, being able to think of very little other than things unrelated to work but also lame, cliché, or "don't interview…

I'm curious, what do you think is a "good" answer? Because, from the interviewer standpoint, here's what such questions are about. Prepare to have your mind blown, maybe. 1. Hiring is by far the most stressful, unpredictable, career-destroying part of a manager's job. And that's as an employee, if that's your business (founder, entrepreneur) you're scared shitless that a mistake may plain and simple ruin your busines…

The interviewee is _always_ more vulnerable than the hiring manager/employer. And the interviewee does _not_ have the luxury of finding out about whether the manager/team/company is "normal" by asking a bunch of euphemistic questions, because the interviewee is judged _even_ on the questions they ask.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#268

Post by acephal » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:03 PM UTC

sidlls wrote: post #266

Grustaf wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers. Don’t you think that this should be up to the founders to decide? I would personally much prefer a frat house atmosphere than the more common geeky introvert culture that most technology companies have, but I would not like there to be laws about it.

No, I don't think it should be. Companies are afforded protections and benefits under the law. They owe society something in return for that. One of the things I think they owe is a responsibility to act in certain ways with respect to the general public, which includes their own employees.

Hilarious you're getting downvoted to oblivion without a reply for a warranted opinion like this is reddit.

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#269

Post by adj83 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

stared wrote: post #7

As an Aspie/ADD, I have never passed any formal interview, even for an intern position (sic!). (You can compare and contrast it with my GitHub/Resume/blog to make a judgment.) Fortunately, many times (even for mid-size companies or research institutes) the hiring was less formal. For small startups, where it is informal, I didn't feel at a disadvantage. For big, I don't believe I can pass through the first filter. It…

you succeeded in university though

Re: To hire neurodiverse workers, one firm got rid of job interviews

#270

Post by Retric » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:05 PM UTC

azangru wrote: post #265

Retric wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience interviews are less effective with students because they rarely have relevant experience to talk about. At the mid level and above tests and technical questions become less useful, but they can talk about meaningful past projects. I don’t know of anything else that’s predictive without weeding great people out. PS: It’s odd, but I suspect a random process may actually work better because the great pe…

> because the great people actively looking for jobs are likely to be bad at getting them. Why do you estimate it as "likely" (i.e. more probable than being average/good at getting the jobs)?

I assume they are mostly unrelated skills, my mental assumptions work something like:

Suppose the top 10% of developers break down: 1/3 are noticeably worse than average and take 6 months to find a job, 1/3 are average and take 3 months to find a job, and 1/3 are above average and take 1 month to find a job. Each month 3000 people or 100 good 100 average and 100 bad start looking for work and the number of people looking for a dev job is 10,000.

Our of that 10,000: 100 are great developers skilled at finding jobs so 1%. 300 are great developers that are average at finding jobs so 3%. And 600 are great developers that are bad at finding jobs so 6%. That’s still 10% of applicants but most of them don’t look as hot in interviews.