←back to thread

1764 points fatihky | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.414s | source
Show context
johan_larson ◴[] No.12701520[source]
The meta-question is, "Do you have the social savvy to give the conventional answers when being judged by someone who doesn't know what he is taking about?"
replies(5): >>12701568 #>>12701742 #>>12701976 #>>12702297 #>>12702492 #
barkingcat ◴[] No.12701568[source]
Yah I get the feeling you're supposed to "act stupid" so you can get to the next interview.

Definitely not an idea way of getting candidates - you are selecting for people who know how to manipulate screens (and thus increasing the risk of getting a bad candidate), or rejecting otherwise knowledgeable people who just don't have the time/inclination/"social savvy" to pretend to be stupid.

replies(1): >>12701740 #
geofft ◴[] No.12701740[source]
Why not? Especially in a managerial position, you will occasionally need to build a rapport with people who are convinced they have good technical knowledge, but don't. Being able to talk to them productively instead of picking fights is a skill worth selecting for.

If you can't figure out that the first person who's interviewing you has answers on a sheet of paper and you're supposed to parrot them until you get to the second person, how are you ever going to figure out that the first person you're selling to has some business requirements on a sheet of paper and you'll never get to the second person until you parrot those?

"Oh, we're not actually using Docker, we're using rkt, which is a compatible reimplementation of --" "I'm sorry, I've been told Docker is a requirement. We can't use your Cuber Netty thing until you support it. Bye!"

replies(3): >>12701804 #>>12701851 #>>12702143 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.12701851[source]
Have an up-vote. This is the most plausible explanation. They're testing his social skills and how he deals with people who are less technical than he--not testing his technical knowledge.

EDIT: To add to this, I've seen this tactic before on an interview. Interviewer asked me a pretty softball technical question, I nailed it, and then he said, "No, you're wrong, it's [OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT ANSWER]." He was clearly trying to gauge how well I handle someone who thinks they know what they are talking about, but actually do not--which can a surprisingly large number of people in the office.

replies(3): >>12702023 #>>12702164 #>>12706583 #
NoPiece ◴[] No.12702023[source]
The most plausible explanation is the guy failed the interview, felt bad about it, then wrote a version of it to make him look good and Google bad to punish them.
replies(1): >>12702176 #
1. lazyjones ◴[] No.12702176[source]
I find the thought more plausible that Google had 100s or 1000s of candidates and they weren't willing to interview all of them directly because most are usually crap, so they let some incompetent contractor do a pre-screening.
replies(1): >>12707964 #
2. johan_larson ◴[] No.12707964[source]
I really wish our industry could create some generally trusted benchmarks of skill that we could take once and then be done with. As things are, we have to prove basic programming skill with every employer. You'd think this wouldn't be necessary with more than a decade of experience and several degrees in computer science from eminent institutions, but apparently it is. I'm fine with employers asking very particular questions about the domain of work, but we shouldn't have to prove sanity all over again every time.