Item — HN Reader

For those of you not reading this article (appears to be most) - this is a META article:

1. Main thrust is that all the HN posts on this topic are stupid and formulaic

2. Argues that numerous the OTHER posts merely list the negatives for one method of interviewing A, and the positives for another method B.

3. Lists every method of interviewing, showing glaring problems and advantages in each of them. Obviating the need for the discussion ever happening again.

4. Asks for something akin to evidence if we are going to drive the discussion forward.

1 comments

I've read it, and while it starts with a request for a double-blind study, it immediatelly moves on to listing a subset of interviewing techniques. It is by no means exhaustive.

If the focus was to be on evidence, it would provide a framework for such a study. It generally sounds pretty hard to do anything of the sort.

>> I've read it, and while it starts with a request for a double-blind study, it immediately moves on to listing a subset of interviewing techniques.

Uh, what? It start by saying "I can’t keep track of the number of articles I’ve read about hiring in the past few years. Inevitably, they all follow the exact same format"

That point is true.

The question then becomes "Why does the community generate spammy articles without making any sincere attempt at intellectual progress toward a better system?"

And the answer is probably that it's not in any individual's self-interest. HN members want to whine about not getting hired by google, companies want to promote themselves, people like me want validation.

The only people who have any incentive/interest in objective hiring are companies that specialize in that purpose (e.g. hired, interviewing.io). But there's really no reason for them to divulge their secret sauce, and even if they did, people would probably only upvote it if it let them feel less insecure about getting rejected by google.