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

IBM's Asshole Test

johnpublic.mataroa.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 604 posts

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#541

Post by SilasX »

bee_rider wrote: post #525
SilasX wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you refuse to be a helpful contributor to discussions. Life is littered with cases where people thought they understood each other but didn’t. If there’s a chance you’ll be misinterpreted, you’re not communicating well and need to take steps to correct it, just out of general empathy for those who don’t have the exact same knowledge as you.

In conversations where optimizing the productivity of the discussion is a priority, I would not use sarcasm.

And you don't see HN as that kind of place?

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#542

Post by dkarl »

erikerikson wrote: post #417

I've read a lot of these comments and it honestly seems like many people here have failed the HN version of this test while helping me understand why I've failed so many interviews... People have written about: * lying to, tricking, and misleading candidates * making problems harder and harder or exerting pressure to observe behavior under duress * forcing people to socialize in a mentally open state with someone tha…

I think stress is a normal part of life. Too much stress is harmful, but too little stress is like living in zero gravity: we aren't built for it, and we start to deteriorate.

But suppose you disagree. Let's think about it differently: maybe stress isn't inevitable at work, but being faced with a problem that you can't easily solve is. A candidate needs to be able to deal with that situation, so it's fair to expose them to it in an interview. If they feel a certain amount of stress in that situation, then they need to cope with that amount of stress without being paralyzed by it, and without taking it out on the people around them. If a candidate experiences an unhealthy amount of stress when faced with a situation that is a normal part of the job duties, maybe it's not the right job for them.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#543

Post by iex_xei »

eej71 wrote: post #67

Decades ago, in the days before uber, my employer would fly in candidates from college campuses as part of an onsite interview. The candidate would fly in the night before and we relied on a taxi service to bring the candidate to the hotel. Then in the morning the same service would bring them to the onsite and of course bring them back to the airport at the end. It was a whole curated process. Little did the candida…

I'm thinking of a scenario where the driver turns out to be the interviewer. Real life LinkedIn story.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#544

Post by bee_rider »

SilasX wrote: post #541
bee_rider wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In conversations where optimizing the productivity of the discussion is a priority, I would not use sarcasm.

And you don't see HN as that kind of place?

This site has lots of good technical discussions, but it is not a place I'd go to pick up dating tips.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#545

Post by erikerikson »

dkarl wrote: post #542
erikerikson wrote: post #417

I've read a lot of these comments and it honestly seems like many people here have failed the HN version of this test while helping me understand why I've failed so many interviews... People have written about: * lying to, tricking, and misleading candidates * making problems harder and harder or exerting pressure to observe behavior under duress * forcing people to socialize in a mentally open state with someone tha…

I think stress is a normal part of life. Too much stress is harmful, but too little stress is like living in zero gravity: we aren't built for it, and we start to deteriorate. But suppose you disagree. Let's think about it differently: maybe stress isn't inevitable at work, but being faced with a problem that you can't easily solve is. A candidate needs to be able to deal with that situation, so it's fair to expose t…

Stress is part of life and most software jobs have times of it though that should be an exception. I agree a sense of tendencies under stress should be observed.

In a sense you make my point for me. Interviews are sufficiently high stakes to be inherently stressful and there are always many unknowns in them. I think the interviewers very important job is to establish psychological safety in the interview even while exposing candidates to additional unknowns and difficult problems to solve. Think of it this way... Taking an adversarial approach provides headwinds, being supportive may get the whole interviewer pool further in the problems and better stimulates the supportive environment of a good office culture and environment.

Remember that candidates are interviewing with you too and you can better communicate the environment and get a better read of how they would participate when you better simulate the reality.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#547

Post by mcguire »

Shocka1 wrote: post #521
bibinou wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be fun in taxis.

I was thinking the same. I get the whole Hacker News "being a contrarian just to be a contrarian" thing, but this specific thread has gone much further than I thought it would.

To be fair, defending 'being a n asshole' is hard to do.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#548

Post by reificator »

mcguire wrote: post #547
Shocka1 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the same. I get the whole Hacker News "being a contrarian just to be a contrarian" thing, but this specific thread has gone much further than I thought it would.

To be fair, defending 'being a n asshole' is hard to do.

Wait I'm an asshole? For being upset that treating taxi drivers "as a human being" is considered a positive interaction instead of the absolute bare minimum of a respectful member of society?

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#549

Post by isbvhodnvemrwvn »

rendall wrote: post #495
Tepix wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The work environment may be stressful at times, it's very valuable for the employer to know how a candidate will behave in these situations, don't you agree?

> The work environment may be stressful at times... If you're talking about SWE or adjacent, why?

You need to talk with people and come up to an agreement, in situations like that conflict is inevitable.

Re: IBM's Asshole Test

#550

Post by bee_rider »

SilasX wrote: post #546
bee_rider wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This site has lots of good technical discussions, but it is not a place I'd go to pick up dating tips.

I think the question was about productivity of discussion.

Some discussions are serious and follow the core competency of the site (technical ones for example). For these discussions, it is best to avoid sarcasm and non-obvious forms of communication.

Some discussions are not serious, and are destined not to be really productive anyway. Dating advice falls into that category.

Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I don't see who's being helped by this.

Post reply on HN