←back to thread

You Have to Feel It

(mitchellh.com)
376 points tosh | 4 comments | 30 Aug 25 14:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.827s | source
Show context
mcdeltat ◴[30 Aug 25 22:47 UTC] No.45078646[source]▶
I've learnt that just about everything in life boils down to feelings, which is interesting. No matter how rational a person or people claim to be, usually it comes down to feelings... Life choices? Business decisions? Who gets promoted? It's all vibes and feelings. People will deliberate and argue over facts but ultimately there will be some "weighting" factor which is feelings and will make or break the outcome. You can have a perfectly argued decision that fails some vibe check and is hence discarded. Or a terrible argument that plays to some emotional point so is accepted. It's all feelings. Rare is the opposite.
replies(12): >>45078785 #>>45078868 #>>45079484 #>>45079722 #>>45079897 #>>45080295 #>>45080735 #>>45083072 #>>45083193 #>>45083907 #>>45084333 #>>45084578 #
Aurornis ◴[31 Aug 25 02:45 UTC] No.45079897[source]▶
> You can have a perfectly argued decision that fails some vibe check and is hence discarded

One of the worst hires I ever worked with was excellent on paper, came with good credentials, had an impressive resume, and did objectively well on the interview questions.

However, everyone who interviewed him felt uneasy about him. He failed the vibe check, even though he checked all of the boxes and knew all the right things to say. At the time there was a big push for eliminating bias and being and as objective as possible in hiring, so we were lightly admonished for raising questions based on vibes.

When he was hired, it turned out our vibes were justified. He was someone who played games and manipulated his way through his career. He could say the right things and navigate his way through office politics unscathed while causing damage to everything he touched.

Since then I’ve observed a number of situations where decisions that seemed objectively good but came with weird vibes were later revealed to be bad. Some of the most skilled grifters I’ve encountered were brilliant at appearing objectively good but couldn’t pass vibe checks of experienced business people. Some of the most objectively good deals on paper that came with weird vibes later turned out to be hugely problematic.

I think the trap is thinking that vibes and feelings are wrong and should be ignored in favor of pre-selected objective measures. This is good practice when doing a scientific study, but it’s not a good practice when you’re entering a real world situation where an adversarial party can root out those criteria, fake them, and use your objectivity against you.

replies(6): >>45080676 #>>45081009 #>>45081817 #>>45082596 #>>45082722 #>>45083512 #
underlipton ◴[31 Aug 25 14:42 UTC] No.45083512[source]▶
This is why recruitment as it exists now is a farce. If everything is ultimately vibes-based, there's no point in portraying the process as objective. I'd say that it's even a sort of fraud to do so.

Set base credentials, lottery of everyone who passes the post, full hire or fire after a short (1 month, at most) probationary period where vibes are considered. There's no reason to go through rounds and rounds of interviews over months. It's a waste of everyone's time. Unless your criteria are completely compromised, you'll find someone within a few tries.

replies(2): >>45086522 #>>45097010 #
1. ghaff ◴[31 Aug 25 19:58 UTC] No.45086522[source]▶
The problem with probationary periods is that, especially if relocation is involved, it's really expensive/disruptive to the employee. I'm reasonably confident that I'd have cleared the bar but I probably wouldn't have taken a job when there was a clear short-term probationary period that required me moving across the country. Just too much risk unless it's an incredible opportunity.
replies(1): >>45087895 #
2. underlipton ◴[31 Aug 25 23:07 UTC] No.45087895[source]▶
I'm of two minds on this.

1) If such a short probationary period is involved, there's no reason to permanently move during it. A short-term rental will do. If the position works out, then move. (I have done this, it is doable.)

2) Then maybe the job isn't right for you.

The point is to strip the desperation to find The One True Candidate/Job On The First Try, from both sides. Companies are already hiring based on vibes, so this just formalizes it. Employees are already subject to swift termination, based on their employers' whims; this just makes that expectation transparent. From both sides: if it isn't going to work out, we get there quickly and move on. Little is worse than being on a job for half a year, only to get sacked because it took that long for the company to decide that it doesn't like you.

replies(1): >>45088216 #
3. ghaff ◴[01 Sep 25 00:02 UTC] No.45088216[source]▶
>Employees are already subject to swift termination, based on their employers' whims

Except in practice, they mostly aren't because onboarding takes time and cost and relocating employees (if applicable) has costs.

Of course, if you're a pro football player, here today/gone tomorrow is the norm. But I'm not sure that is or should be the expectation for an engineer. In part, because I doubt there is a "One True Candidate" for the the most part.

Yes, roles shift/requirements shift and both companies and employees move on but there's generally some value to stability on both sides. Even if an employee can get an employer-paid rental for a month, thy've still presumably left their prior job and will have to scramble in various ways.

replies(1): >>45117473 #
4. underlipton ◴[03 Sep 25 16:13 UTC] No.45117473{3}[source]▶
You're talking about a social contract. That's something that barely exists, these days. The problem here is as much timing as expectations. It is difficult to tell if you're signing on with a chop shop until you're suddenly on the block. I would rather we dispense with the games and people be upfront. Companies don't want that, because they can market it as stability while reserving an edge over both their employees and competitors (the same with many benefits). If what I described becomes the norm, employees lose that sense of stability, but they gain an edge in that businesses can no longer hold it over their heads.

Let's be clear, though, that it's not actual stability: it's a sense of stability, and it's often false.