Live data from Hacker News

Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already

threadreaderapp.com

301–310 of 506 posts

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

#301
post #97
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For fuck's sake, cut out the middle man and just request SAT / ACT scores.

I'm canadian so have never taken these tests, but I was under the impression that a large component of scoring well on them is cramming?

From a psychometric perspective, they are IQ tests, in that they show the same correlation with IQ tests that IQ tests show with each other.

From a research-into-today's-hot-button-issues perspective, they are routinely slammed for being about cramming, but the effect of test preparation on test scores tends to be very close to zero when you look into it.

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

#302

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.

Meh, IQ is potential, not capability, to do a job. I don't find this argument convincing. What about all the literal geniuses who have no interest and never studied CS? At least the graduate can show that he/she can commit to a multi-year long, sometimes boring, project successfully. A high IQ person could just leave your company after 6 months because "they're bored".

I’m not saying employers would hire solely based on IQ. That would be crazy. It’s just a screening measure. But so is educational attainment. Nobody gets hired because they have a college degree, but plenty of people don’t get hired because they lack a college degree.

Also, agree that educational attainment gives you more information about a candidate, but in terms of assessing intelligence, it is a coarser measure than IQ. I’ve hired a few people in my day, and there is huge divergence in intelligence among college grads. For lots of jobs it is useful to be able to distinguish between not-stupid, bright, and ridiculously smart. Educational attainment doesn’t really help with that, but IQ tests would.

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

#303
post #38
post #8

> Everyone in Silicon Valley uses equity, and not debt, to fuel their growth because debt is not available in sufficient quantities to poorly capitalized companies without a strong history of adequate cash flows to service debt. A corollary to this is that if you're fundraising and can get debt, you should take it over equity almost every time. Many founders are skeptical of debt because everyone takes equity, yet ev…

No no no. Debt is not universally better. Debt can wipe out companies. It requires payments that equity does not. Miss one payment and you're in default. It's extremely risky for companies that are young and volatile. Debt vs. equity is always a case-by-case situation. Debt is cheaper but comes with strings attached. Equity is pricey but more flexible.

I don't think debt would be worse for startups though. It's unlikely debt would wipe out a startup unless it continually finances through debt over a long period of time or just has really unfavorable debt terms (which wouldn't make sense for the debt issuer either).

The problem is getting debt financing...but I would imagine debt financing would make sense for 99.99% of startups.

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

#304
post #8

> Everyone in Silicon Valley uses equity, and not debt, to fuel their growth because debt is not available in sufficient quantities to poorly capitalized companies without a strong history of adequate cash flows to service debt. A corollary to this is that if you're fundraising and can get debt, you should take it over equity almost every time. Many founders are skeptical of debt because everyone takes equity, yet ev…

I wonder if debt is "not available" simply because it's not the standard for SV. I would bet that companies like Slack, Stripe, Stitchfix, etc could have raised considerable amounts of debt instead of raising money through their last rounds.

It's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.

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

#305
post #177

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. I think you're wrong about that, http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...

Your link is to a story about an employer who uses a test which is a proxy for intelligence (they even give the rough equivalency between the test they use and IQ). I think that supports my point that intelligence is one of the more important things employers are looking for. Most employers don’t have the resources to develop a hiring screening test and then certify that it is not discriminatory, so they use educatio…

IQ tests used for hiring do exist in the US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_test

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

#306

> Companies find it incredibly hard to reliably staff positions with hard-working generalists who operate autonomously and have high risk tolerances. This is not the modal employee, including at places which are justifiably proud of the skill/diligence/etc of their employees. This one. Every job I see when I go looking is 40+ hrs a week, likely with plenty of idle time and projects I don't believe in. Part of this is…

Some resources you may find of interest:

* "Have Fun at Work" by William L. Livingston -- Livingston provide examples of how organizations are often incapable of hiring the people who might help them most.

* "The Murdering of My Years: Artists and Activists Making Ends Meet" by Mickey Z. -- This book is more in the category of seeing how bad so many creative people have it (until perhaps we get a basic income some day, Star Trek replicators for subsistence, a gift economy, and/or better government planning).

* "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" by Dan Pink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive:_The_Surprising_Truth_Ab...

* "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn: http://www.alfiekohn.org/punished-rewards/

* "The Abolition of Work" by Bob Black (which reflects your point in another comment on "giving in to a job"): https://web.archive.org/web/20161031034600/http://whywork.or... "Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkies and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes."

Contrast with notions of "full employment". Or, sadly, also most of what Silicon Valley is up to these days...

About a decade ago, I sent that last link to an Apple recruiter who contacted me -- never heard back. :-) Not that I am a "Steve Jobs" or would want to be one, but, as with Livingston's point, would Apple hire a Steve Jobs as an employee? Almost certainly not. See: http://careerfuel.net/2013/06/if-apple-wouldnt-hire-steve-jo...

Though for balance, on the value of working together with others even in difficult circumstances, see "Buddhist Economics" by E.F. Schumacher: http://www.centerforneweconomics.org/buddhist-economics "The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure."

I've collected some more ideas on making workplaces better here: https://github.com/pdfernhout/High-Performance-Organizations...

From what you describe, if you can't find a direct match to what you would like to do, you may want to consider being frugal and then earning what money you need to live in a low-stress part-time occupation with the rest of your time then available for what you really want to do. Have you ever considered, say, cleaning carpets to make ends meet? https://web.archive.org/web/20030807105050/http://www.unconv... "More than a few people agree the best career would be one which provides challenge, intellectual stimulation, and rewards for quality work. Many however, would be surprised to discover they can have all of those benefits and more in some of the unlikeliest of careers. Case in point: I'm a professional carpet cleaner. Some people think this is a second-rate career. I don't agree with them. Carpet cleaning gives me challenges, intellectual stimulation, and many other rewards. To prove this, permit me to walk you through one of my work days. ..."

If instead you focus on "selling [yourself] to contract shops", you may find this book Aaron Erickson useful: "The Nomadic Developer: Surviving and Thriving in the World of Technology Consulting".

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

#307
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If IQ tests were a reliable measure of any job capability, surely the brilliant minds at Mensa would already have made a mint by selling recruitment services.

Well, part of the problem is that mensa is a total crock of shit.

Define "crock of shit?" It's just an organization with membership requirements, by that logic organizations such as the VFW are a "crock of shit."

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

#308
post #282
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the amount of money and resources that goes into recruiting and hiring, I find it hard to believe that the industry is not serious. On the other hand, the current approaches clearly don't work very well, and everybody knows it, but nobody seems to be interested in seriously thinking about what we need to do differently. (patio11 and tptacek are notable exceptions)

Aline Lerner is interested: http://blog.alinelerner.com/

So her best predictor of future job performance is number of typos on resume. That is my pet peeve when looking at resumes, but it really discriminates against people for whom English is not their native language. On the other hand, didn't have a lot of non native English speakers applying to the positions for which I was hiring back then.

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

#309
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been spending a lot of time lately wondering if people who treat colleges and universities as though their job is worker training are confused, or if I'm naive in believing colleges and universities exist to expand human knowledge through research and education. I suspect the answer is that our culture is confused, we want people who are smart and well rounded to also be useful. And the ugly side of it is, we wa…

> One would never refer to law school or medical school as "vocational". Sure you would. They are 100% vocational schools. Their cost, acceptance rates, time commitment, and difficulty level may be higher than other vocational schools, but that doesn't change what they are -- 100% focused on giving you the knowledge and skills to do a specific job.

Law schools (or at least the top 20 school that I went to) are definitely not 100% focused on teaching you the vocation of being an attorney.

Hell, they aren't even focused on teaching you to pass the bar, which is why most people pay for separate cram schools.

Post reply on HN