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

The Lesson to Unlearn

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 588 posts

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#441

Post by gnicholas »

ajju wrote: post #435
gnicholas wrote: post #417

I usually find PG’s writing to be very illuminating, but I largely disagree with this piece. I think the reason founders want introductions to influential people is not because they think that this is what you need to be successful. It’s because they have seen many cases where influential people talked up startups that seemed to be pretty mediocre, and it helped them succeed. And they think “well my startup is at lea…

> They think (correctly) that having these things will accelerate their growth and somewhat lower the bar to success Incorrectly, unless you define success as a local maxima. You usually can’t influence your way to broad user adoption

What makes you say that? For early stage startups, it seems especially likely that increased awareness can (though usually will not) create a material amount of additional success.

I know that a few fortunate tweets my startup received drove tons of traffic our way, and likely resulted in the press coverage we received soon after. And that press coverage brought more users, and also the proof points of having been covered by major media. That makes fundraising and partnerships easier, etc.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#442

Post by rglullis »

knzhou wrote: post #428
rglullis wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the absence of any objective measures One would argue that this is the current status. How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146? How my grades in Computer Engineering can be used to predict my performance as an Engineer in a country where 85% of the graduates would work in non-technical and more profitable fields? If a company looking for…

Again, the alternative to standardized tests and credentials is hiring based on connections, ethnicity, pedigree, physical appearance, and superficial confidence. These problems are exactly why meritocracy was invented in the first place. The alternative is not everybody getting the jobs they want, it's you being turned away without any consideration at all because the boss already hired their cousin. > How objective…

You are moving the goal posts. I was talking only about standardized tests, and now you are also including credentials on the mix.

As for the IQ test - it wasn't online and it wasn't a study, as far as I know - but I can totally concede that it was not a "real" IQ test.

Anyway, the story happened over 20 years ago. Part of the driving exam in Brazil included a "neuro-psychological evaluation" and the doctor flagged me for some extra tests. From what I remember I went to the clinic the next week, did one test, did the "neuro-technical" exam and was told to wait for an IQ test. When I got the form, it was the same as I got before originally (different order of questions) Long story short I asked why I was re-taking the test and I thought I "failed" somehow. They actually said they were not aware of the first one and later on found it.

Now that I think about it, perhaps it was some weird psychology test? :)

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#443

Post by _xluo »

This article reminds me of my interview for workstations at HPi. I came away from it knowing that I had to work there. The interview was 5 hours: 4 one hour sessions and lunch with the team. I didn't write a single line of code the whole day. Every question came with the disclaimer that the answer was less important than the thought process.

Disclaimer: I work there now and my opinions don't necessarily represent my employer's etc.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#444

Post by dennis_jeeves »

dominotw wrote: post #310
loh wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see a company conducting these kinds of tests during interviews, it's a signal to me that they are probably not a very forward-thinking company, and probably not a good fit for someone like me who tends to think outside the box. If it's another cog in their machine that they want, these kinds of interview tests are probably pretty good. But if they're an innovative company trying to change the world, they'd be…

> it's a signal to me that they are probably not a very forward-thinking company Can you give me an example of a forward thinking company according to you?

>When I see a company conducting these kinds of tests during interviews, it's a signal to me that they are probably not a very forward-thinking company,

Can you list all 'forward thinking' companies for the benefit of all of us?

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#445

Post by [deleted] »

darkkindness wrote: post #285
flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #218

Funny to read and enjoy this article this morning... Open up HN again this afternoon for a quick work break... And find my eyes IMMEDIATELY glancing at my karma score in the top right before anything else. Perhaps PG should practice what he preaches and rip that out of the UI? I would encourage it... damnit... I just looked again.

Just inject: td:nth-child(3) > span.pagetop { color: transparent; } Hides karma, leaves user and logout intact (as they're links)

[deleted]

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#446

Post by ericsoderstrom »

pavlov wrote: post #240

The tech industry has unfortunately adopted the methodology of centralized hackable tests as the canonical gatekeeping method in the form of programming interviews. Most big tech companies don't care about how good you have been at delivering some value through creating software: they want to see you deliver a very specific type of performance at a whiteboard. Interviewers are given specific math puzzle questions to…

> Most big tech companies don't care about how good you have been at delivering some value through creating software: they want to see you deliver a very specific type of performance at a whiteboard

PG specifically points out that success within a large tech company is predicated on bogus hackable tests. So it makes sense that their selection criteria should also be a hackable test. The better you do on that artificial selection criterion for admission, the better you're likely to do on the artificial selection criteria of internal career progression. So in this particular case, the hackable admission test is a good proxy.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#447

Post by ci5er »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #299
burlesona wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a hiring manager at a big company, I can tell you this is just as frustrating for me as it is for candidates. I hate “leet code” and frankly find algorithmic interviews to be very low signal compared to more practical, open-ended, domain-specific problems. I will say though, the problem is one of “standardization” across an organization where it’s too big for everyone to fit in a room. Suppose you give each tea…

I was a hiring manager at a big company for years. We never did coding tests, and I like to think that I made good choices every time. I kept a high-functioning team together, under fairly humble pay, and stressful, sometimes demoralizing, conditions, for decades. I'm mediocre, at best, at these tests. I don't come from a traditional CS background (started as an EE). I tend to take unusual, hybrid approaches to solvi…

I consult some (maybe a lot). My work product belongs to the client. I am not legally allowed to share.

Some of it I would like to share (and some of it not!), but it really isn't my choice.

(Also - because I am fairly cross-disciplinary, the code for a controller to stand up a 100 ton rig, is not the same as the code to monitor the growth/feed/heat/light for algea in vertical tubes. And neither is likely to be asked of me for projects having to do with creating controllers for missions related to diabetic control or scooping up space debris. The ability to analygize only goes so far.)

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#448

Post by noobermin »

GCA10 wrote: post #300
taeric wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is amusing how many of my peers still hold to the notion that heavier things fall faster. Not a higher terminal velocity, but the intuition that they accelerate faster. Hilariously tough for folks to shake.

Add air resistance into the mix, and denser materials do fall faster. Coins vs. napkins. Plums vs. crumpled balls of paper I'd actually take the lesson the other way. It's hilariously tough for model-makers to acknowledge real-world noise that prevents their theoretically precise models from delivering reliable results.

The reality I've learned is your intuition isn't necessarily wrong, it might just need more information. Arisotlian..."physics" isn't wrong neccessarily, it's just a model of motion under certain conditions (everyday conditions on Earth under an atmosphere or/and on friction-full surfaces) Newton's 1st can be thought of a generalization of Arisotle's (or anyone's) intuition...which to make things worse, physics' 101 students are not taught about.

One of the things I think was the best ideas I learned in physics is that physics is all about approximations. Theorists tend to forget this annoyingly, but it helps keep naive scientists from using words like "fundamental" without qualifications, or saying garbage statements like "Newton's law X is wrong."

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#450

Post by noobermin »

As someone who's not entirely convinced VC funding start-ups isn't the best model for how society can allocate resources, I'm always impressed with how pg thinks, but I find he misses the boundaries of the world he lives in. He's right about artificial tests, but he fails when he says the current situation really allows "people doing good things" to get ahead. I mean, just look WeWork. It's hard to claim WeWork won at an artificial test, unless you count convincing others with your confidence as your test. I'm not sure that's what he thinks it is though.

You can claim non-artificial tests are "better," but humans (VC's) still hold the purse-strings so to speak. If you can convince them you're winning the non-artificial tests say of the market, then you can get money and do coke and party for a while, whilst sure your company will crash and burn but you escape unscathed with millions of sweet free money. My point is the problem is deeper than just "artificial" vs. "non-artificial", although it is an important aspect.

Post reply on HN