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

Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

threadreaderapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 506 posts

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#271

Post by toasterlovin »

valuearb wrote: post #105
toasterlovin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher education is used as a proxy for intelligence by companies who are hiring because they are not allowed to use IQ tests. So I think it kind of makes sense that our society is confused about the purpose of higher education.

It's not just an IQ test, it's a test of ability, which is different. Your college record shows that you a) Whether you were able to get the work done. b) Whether you were smart enough to do the work well. It's the combination that's important, not either single one. Employers want people who show up on time, actually care enough to try, and are smart enough to figure it out. The college degree has a better than zero…

I agree with all of that, though spending 4 years to make that determination seems crazy to me. A competent employer can figure out which hires are worthwhile in about a month or so.

There’s another issue with using educational attainment as a proxy of intelligence: it doesn’t really help you distinguish among candidates who all have a bachelors degree. All you know is that they’re above some threshold, but not how far above. You can use the prestige of the school as a proxy for this, but it all seems like a hell of a lot of hassle when you can figure this all out in a half hour with an IQ test.

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#272

Post by toasterlovin »

jogjayr wrote: post #223
ramses0 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's related to anti-discrimination / "psychology-test" laws. If there is any sort of "test" given as a condition of employment, it must be relevant, standardized, non-biased, reviewed by specialists and approved, etc. http://cdn8.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Test1... The value and definition of "IQ" is widely disputed and generally seen as of limited relevance to the actual work and performance of that…

The linked image you shared is one I've seen before that was a Louisiana state voter literacy test used for voter suppression. It was disproportionately administered to black voters[1] I'm not saying that IQ tests are useful measures of ability to do a job. I just wasn't aware there was actual law or precedent forbidding their use. > If there is any sort of "test" given as a condition of employment, it must be releva…

Whiteboard tests are directly relevant to the position being hired for and, thus, okay to use.

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#273

Post by toasterlovin »

majormajor wrote: post #219
ramses0 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's related to anti-discrimination / "psychology-test" laws. If there is any sort of "test" given as a condition of employment, it must be relevant, standardized, non-biased, reviewed by specialists and approved, etc. http://cdn8.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Test1... The value and definition of "IQ" is widely disputed and generally seen as of limited relevance to the actual work and performance of that…

One day I wonder if some lawyer will strike it big by making an argument that looking at universities is discrimination because e.g. family connections and wealth give you a big leg up in getting into certain elite schools...

Yeah, but most universities engage in affirmative action, which theoretically negates this.

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#274

Post by [deleted] »

im2nguyen wrote: post #264
brucephillips wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except google's idea wasn't "search engine". Google's idea was "search engine that uses the PageRank algorithm". PageRank did not encompass all of the value of Google, but it did encompass much of it, and it was unequivocally part of the idea. What you're effectively saying is that ideas have no value without good execution, which is of course true, but this is very different than saying they have no value, because a…

If the value is in "search engine that uses the PageRank algorithm", then theoretically you can take that idea and execute it to get the same value. The difference isn't in the idea but the execution - hence the value.

[deleted]

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#275

Post by brucephillips »

otakucode wrote: post #265

I don't believe companies want "hard-working generalists who operate autonomously and have high risk tolerances." I mean obviously, yes, they would claim to want that, but that sort of employee is fundamentally incompatible with modern business. Modern business is predicated upon the idea of employees being as replaceable and interchangeable as possible. It is a common idea presented in many management books that if…

> The efficient market hypothesis says that profit is an error

No it doesn't. It's a pricing hypothesis. It says nothing about the presence or absence of profits.

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#276

Post by im2nguyen »

brucephillips wrote: post #270
im2nguyen wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the value is in "search engine that uses the PageRank algorithm", then theoretically you can take that idea and execute it to get the same value. The difference isn't in the idea but the execution - hence the value.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. EDIT: Oh I see what you mean now. By "you", you actually mean me. No, I couldn't, because Google has parlayed their initial good idea into a monopoly based on network effects, specifically the accrual of proprietary data (clicks) which I have no access to. The idea was valuable in 1997. It's no longer.

If the value is in the idea, then multiple execution of the same idea should result in the same/similar values. But... this isn't true irl, therefore the differences in value isn't in the idea but the execution

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#277

Post by wyclif »

joezydeco wrote: post #150
mikestew wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tough to find any industry that pays more for the amount of experience/education. And in five years you'll be making about as much as you're ever going to make. I believe that was at least part of the point.

As someone with 25+ years in the same area of (non-web, non AmaGoogBook) engineering, this is totally the case. The wage curve goes flat and nobody offers anything above the median for increasingly large years of experience and battle scars.

That's why you need to start a company ;-) It's also why there are so many startups.

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#278

Post by munchbunny »

majormajor wrote: post #225
shostack wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also often a messy transition period where a team goes from a bunch of generalists to more specialists. This can be extremely rocky for all involved as often generalists have lots of historic operational knowledge and strong opinions, but the new specialists come with external knowledge of best practices and how to scale. It is important that historic knowledge is respected for the context it provides, while…

Am I crazy to think that generalists are the best-suited engineers to making the managerial move? You can keep a good broad knowledge base sufficient to be useful in early directional discussions, and sufficient to sniff out a lot of (not all) BS artists and identify which specialists to listen to/loop in, in less time than it would take a specialist to do the same in terms of juggling things across team, due to the…

It's certainly a factor, but I'd argue that by a very long margin, people management skills are the best indicator for engineers suited to making the managerial move.

You have to know what you're talking about and know when to defer to experts, and being a generalist might prepare you well for that. But once you've reached the threshold on knowledge and critical thinking, the biggest barrier to being a good manager is mastering the mechanics of people wrangling.

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#279

Post by rocqua »

majormajor wrote: post #225
shostack wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also often a messy transition period where a team goes from a bunch of generalists to more specialists. This can be extremely rocky for all involved as often generalists have lots of historic operational knowledge and strong opinions, but the new specialists come with external knowledge of best practices and how to scale. It is important that historic knowledge is respected for the context it provides, while…

Am I crazy to think that generalists are the best-suited engineers to making the managerial move? You can keep a good broad knowledge base sufficient to be useful in early directional discussions, and sufficient to sniff out a lot of (not all) BS artists and identify which specialists to listen to/loop in, in less time than it would take a specialist to do the same in terms of juggling things across team, due to the…

Being a tech generalist is a great background for a manager. But there are some caveats.

Firstly, besides understanding the work, a manager also has to be able to actually manage subordinates. This is orthogonal to technical ability. Secondly, internal promotion of a generalist carries risk of that generalist being too opinionated based on his own work. They are much more likely to be a conservative force. This might be an unnecessary barrier to good changes.

Re: Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

#280

Post by brucephillips »

im2nguyen wrote: post #276
brucephillips wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. EDIT: Oh I see what you mean now. By "you", you actually mean me. No, I couldn't, because Google has parlayed their initial good idea into a monopoly based on network effects, specifically the accrual of proprietary data (clicks) which I have no access to. The idea was valuable in 1997. It's no longer.

If the value is in the idea, then multiple execution of the same idea should result in the same/similar values. But... this isn't true irl, therefore the differences in value isn't in the idea but the execution

Your error is in concluding that because execution matters, ideas don't matter. But that's erroneous. Both matter.
Post reply on HN