John_Maxwell_IV comments on question: the 40 hour work week vs Silicon Valley? - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Florian_Dietz 24 October 2014 12:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (107)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: lmm 24 October 2014 06:38:35PM 15 points [-]

You'd expect Silicon Valley working practices to be less optimal than those in mature industries, because, well, the industries aren't mature. The companies are often run by people with minimal management experience, and the companies themselves are too short-lived to develop the kind of institutional memory that would be able to determine whether such policies were good or bad. Heck, most of SV still follows interview practices that have been actively shown to be useless, to the extent that they've been abandoned by the company that originated them (Microsoft). Success is too random for these things to be noticeable; the truth is that in SV, being 50% less efficient probably has negligible effects on your odds of success, because the success or failure of a given company is massively overdetermined (in one direction or the other) by other factors.

The only people in a position to figure this kind of thing out, and then act on that knowledge, are the venture capitalists - and they're a long way removed from the action (and anyone smart has already left the business since it's not a good way of making money). Eventually I'd expect VCs to start insisting that companies adopt 40-hour policies, but it's going to take a long time for the signal to emerge from the noise.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 25 October 2014 12:38:14AM 1 point [-]

Heck, most of SV still follows interview practices that have been actively shown to be useless, to the extent that they've been abandoned by the company that originated them (Microsoft).

Can you be more specific?

What do you think the factors that overdetermine a company's success are? I don't think I've heard of that many wildly successful companies in Silicon Valley with dysfunctional corporate cultures.

Comment author: Zubon 25 October 2014 02:23:11AM *  4 points [-]

"We found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time ... They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart."

Link: Here's Why Google Stopped Asking Bizarre, Crazy-Hard Interview Questions

Comment author: Apprentice 25 October 2014 03:30:28PM *  5 points [-]

Bock said ... that learning ability was much more important indicator of whether someone would be a good fit for Google than I.Q.

I have limited trust in a source which says things like that.

Edited to add: More on Bock's learning ability:

For every job, though, the No. 1 thing we look for is general cognitive ability, and it’s not I.Q. It’s learning ability. It’s the ability to process on the fly. It’s the ability to pull together disparate bits of information.

Yeah, nope.

Comment author: Princess_Stargirl 25 October 2014 06:21:52PM 5 points [-]

I was about to post that quote too. Surely IQ has nothing to do with "ability to process on the fly" or "pull together disparate bits of information."

Comment author: Apprentice 25 October 2014 06:57:47PM 10 points [-]

It's of course possible that this Bock guy knows what he's doing on the hiring front. But in these interviews he has no incentive to give Google's competitors coherent helpful information on how to hire people - and every incentive to send out obfuscated messages which might flatter the preconceptions of NYT readers.

Comment author: gwern 25 October 2014 07:15:46PM 10 points [-]

I've pointed out in the past that in the Google context, range restriction is a problem (when everyone applying to Google is ultra-smart, smartness ceases to be a useful predictor), so Bock could be saying something true & interesting in picking out some other traits which vaguely sound like IQ but aren't (maybe 'processing speed'?), but then he or the writer are being very misleading (intentionally or unintentionally). I don't know which of these possibilities might be true.

Comment author: Baughn 26 October 2014 04:09:16PM *  8 points [-]

Everyone who applies to Google is not ultra-smart. Far from it.

As a first-line interviewer, most people get rejected for being blatantly, horrifically incapable.

The perception that they are, unfortunately, causes many people who'd have a chance at acceptance to not even try. Anyone reading this, if you've thought about applying to Google and decided you don't have a chance, please think again! The opportunity costs are really low, and potentially negative; worst case you'll get a bit of interviewing experience.

Comment author: Petter 26 October 2014 04:43:02PM 5 points [-]

No, everyone who applies to Google is not ulta-smart but most who are hired are probably pretty smart.

Given that everyone who are hired are smart, gwerns point is valid.

Comment author: Princess_Stargirl 25 October 2014 07:33:06PM 2 points [-]

Sorry if I was unclear. I am not claiming I understand why that article was written. But the quote is very funny.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 25 October 2014 02:44:00AM 1 point [-]

Something to keep in mind is that a large organization (like Google) may have pretty decentralized hiring practices. Even if Engineering interviewers believe that "brainteaser" questions are a bad idea, that doesn't mean Sales or Finance agrees. And a site called "Business Insider" may care more about Sales or Finance than Engineering ....