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

Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

algorithmichiring.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#81

Post by Eridrus »

gobdovan wrote: post #31
mrkeen wrote: post #13

This is keeping me out of work at the moment. The usual flow is that I have a great HR interview, then I'm assigned an online intelligence (what dots should be in the next box) test and a personality test, and then the company wants nothing to do with me. They manage to screen me out before I have the opportunity to talk about anything computing related . (The old horror-stories of 'I couldn't reverse a BST on a whit…

> The old horror-stories of 'I couldn't reverse a BST on a whiteboard so I didn't get the job' seem wonderful in comparison now > They manage to screen me out before I have the opportunity to talk about anything computing related When I was in college about 10 years ago, I was dreaming a company would interview me on actual algorithms, but sadly I rarely had the occasion to do anything above basic coding. If you want…

> hires based on how similar candidate prior jobs seem to be for current role I have found that people are often not very good at doing new things, so it is much easier to find someone to do the same job they've already done than to ask people to do even a slightly different job.

Some people are adaptable, but the vast majority are not.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#82

Post by Joel_Mckay »

ranger207 wrote: post #78
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could join those in the slow life, invest in passive revenue streams, and keep cash burn rates minimal. You will be fine avoiding debt-based indentured 1980 metropolitan cultures. Learn to play a cheap instrument, garden vegetables, paint miniatures, volunteer at pet shelters, or travel to odd destinations. Play the long game, and remember to have fun. You owe corporate nothing outside what they paid for... and not a…

I want my net worth to be dependent on my skills, not the pile of money I happen to have laying around

Differentiating assets and liabilities is a skill-set like any other. =3

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#83

Post by lo_zamoyski »

everdrive wrote: post #70
mrkeen wrote: post #13

This is keeping me out of work at the moment. The usual flow is that I have a great HR interview, then I'm assigned an online intelligence (what dots should be in the next box) test and a personality test, and then the company wants nothing to do with me. They manage to screen me out before I have the opportunity to talk about anything computing related . (The old horror-stories of 'I couldn't reverse a BST on a whit…

It's quite scary. I think a lot of these HR types are true believers. They think that 1) these tests are valid and objective 2) they are qualified to understand how personalities would interact in a complex system It's astrology for professionals, and companies have let themselves be captured by what are effectively religious zealots.

> It's astrology for professionals

A lot of corporate "metrics" are pseudoscientific. They have a superficial veneer of being "scientific", because there's, like, math and numbers and stuff, man. The world continues to function despite this foolishness, not because of it.

Part of why this is so popular in the US is because the US is a hyper-individualistic culture. In other countries, relations are more important. This irks Americans who think this necessarily entails nepotism (it can), but I would say that 1) this overestimates the relative effectiveness and objectivity of low-info hiring practices, and 2) ignores the fact that all knowledge of another person occurs only through relationships. We're inherently social animals and organizations are inherently social phenomena. (2) is partly why many companies pay referral bonuses. They're relying on the knowledge of someone you have of someone you know. This makes sense. If I've worked with someone, I am in a much better position to evaluate their qualifications in a meaningful way than some HR person or some random whoever. A sane company doesn't care about satisfying some weird, arbitrary ideological benchmark. They care about assembling a team that can work effectively.

There's a mindset that freaks out over the mere potential for something to be abused or suboptimal or whatever, and categorically decides that it's better not to have that thing at all. (Gov't is a great example. Yes, gov'ts can become abusive, but they're also the only force that can stand between you and, say, abusive corporate power.)

Abusus non tollit usum.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#84

Post by shagie »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #77
sudosteph wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filtering out is my guess. About 20 years ago, I remember getting my hands on an answer key for the personality screener used to work at Target. This was just for a $7/hr cashier position, but it had a very low pass rate. To them, the ideal candidate for them was: always positive and optimistic, preferred being around people than being alone, never complained, frequently sought approval from peers and authorities, al…

> I can't see many people passing if they answered honestly. You're not supposed to answer honestly, you're supposed to answer in such a way as to convince them to hire you.

"I know the rules of the game and what it will take to continue to be employed in this position."

---

One employer I had gave a test that included such questions as "It is ok to get into fights behind the store if you are not on the clock" and "It is ok to take inventory as long as it costs less than $5."

There are people who failed that test.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#85

Post by marcosdumay »

rapidaneurism wrote: post #26
matheusmoreira wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a single evaluation function for the industry Could this be an opportunity in disguise? Somehow learn what this function wants, maximize it, then the entire industry opens up?

Apparently the key 'hack' is to present white or hispanic.

No idea why reiterating the exact point of the article got downvoted.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#86

Post by justonceokay »

elzbardico wrote: post #64
justonceokay wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t soft skills much more important than hard skills when it comes to building a team?

We need to be careful about those absolutes. The guy from the carbon fiber + silver tape titanic sub had super people skills. But if you don’t want to be crushed in a submarine by a 10.000 feet water column, you’ll rather have the clumsy/awkward/jerk guy with superb tech skills leading the project.

You might be surprised to hear that there are great engineers who are also good at people skills.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#87

Post by marcosdumay »

justonceokay wrote: post #52
ddejohn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am miserably bad at soft-skills interviews and never get past this round. Been over a year since I've had somebody actually try to assess my technical competency in any real capacity. I'm also getting maybe 1 INITIAL interview every 3 months right now because of this AI screening stuff and I just haven't felt like re-writing my resume to game them.

Aren’t soft skills much more important than hard skills when it comes to building a team?

Are the soft skill important for team work the same they test on interviews?

Based on an experience of never seen the relevant skills tested, and never been able to test for them as an interviewer, I really, really doubt that.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#88

Post by elzbardico »

justonceokay wrote: post #86
elzbardico wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to be careful about those absolutes. The guy from the carbon fiber + silver tape titanic sub had super people skills. But if you don’t want to be crushed in a submarine by a 10.000 feet water column, you’ll rather have the clumsy/awkward/jerk guy with superb tech skills leading the project.

You might be surprised to hear that there are great engineers who are also good at people skills.

In no place I said that there weren't. I don't understand where you got this idea.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#89

Post by naravara »

Eridrus wrote: post #80
sudosteph wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filtering out is my guess. About 20 years ago, I remember getting my hands on an answer key for the personality screener used to work at Target. This was just for a $7/hr cashier position, but it had a very low pass rate. To them, the ideal candidate for them was: always positive and optimistic, preferred being around people than being alone, never complained, frequently sought approval from peers and authorities, al…

You don't see how a customer facing position in a retail chain would reasonably want all these personality traits in their hires as a matter of operating a good business?

Wanting those traits and asking about those traits in a self-reporting questionnaire are two different things.

If it’s a questionnaire you are functionally just screening for liars or people who don’t know how to use the full spectrum of a distribution and put in 5/5 or 0/5 for everything.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#90

Post by quickthrowman »

everdrive wrote: post #70
mrkeen wrote: post #13

This is keeping me out of work at the moment. The usual flow is that I have a great HR interview, then I'm assigned an online intelligence (what dots should be in the next box) test and a personality test, and then the company wants nothing to do with me. They manage to screen me out before I have the opportunity to talk about anything computing related . (The old horror-stories of 'I couldn't reverse a BST on a whit…

It's quite scary. I think a lot of these HR types are true believers. They think that 1) these tests are valid and objective 2) they are qualified to understand how personalities would interact in a complex system It's astrology for professionals, and companies have let themselves be captured by what are effectively religious zealots.

IIRC the personality tests are mostly designed to assess how a candidate deals with authority and to try and suss out if they’re consistent/honest. Testing for ‘personality disorders’ more or less.

I doubt the tests actually help, due to the reasons you provided (and more).

Post reply on HN