 me when I was far
from ticking all the boxes on the job description. "If you hire someone who
has all the necessary qualifications for the job, they'll be bored in 6
months."

~~~
tomnipotent
>> 3\. Will this candidate get along with coworkers?

> Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without
> introducing bias?

You can't because it's a bs metric like "culture fit". After about a dozen
people, you can no longer ensure people will get along or like each other. I
only have five brothers but I don't even like all of them.

People have quirks, and it's easy to find reasons to pass on candidates
because of them (reminds me of Seinfeld and how the characters ended
relationships because of man hands or toes). I see this a lot in non-technical
hiring where marketing folk exclaim "I like the candidate, we have great
rapport" only to discover the candidate was subpar.

> I'm really of two minds on this topic.

I used to be, but after suffering through a bout of mental illness that
rendered me an anxious mess when I was once the life of the party really
changed how I evaluate this dimension. Be kind and assume the best, which we
can all agree would be amazing if the tables were turned.

~~~
nomel
I disagree that this is a bs metric.

When I look for personality, I'm looking three things:

* How they ask questions for things they don't understand

The problems I give are directly applicable but I leave a few slightly vague.
Someone really experienced could fill in the missing pieces easily, but
usually this doesn't happen. I then ask them if the problem makes sense or if
I missed anything. If they can't tell me that the problem isn't clear, or they
need more information, then they'll have trouble working with a team trying to
solve and communicate problems.

A mediocre candidate will say that the problem isn't clear with "I don't
understand". A good candidate will explain what they don't understand. A great
candidate will ask for clarification on the vague piece without much fuss.

* Reaction to not knowing something.

I have a hard problem that I give at the end. I clearly tell them it's
me when I was far 
 from ticking all the boxes on the job description. " If you hire someone who 
 take all the necessary reservation for the job, they'll be bored in 6 
 months. " 

 ~~~ 
 tomnipotent 
 > > 3\. Will this campaigner get along with coworkers? 

 > Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without 
 > introduce bias? 

 You can't because it's a bs metric like " acculturation fit ". After about a dozen 
 multitude, you can no longer ensure people will draw along or like each other. I 
 only have five brothers but I don't even like all of them. 

 People have oddity, and it's easy to find reasons to run on candidates 
 because of them (reminds me of Seinfeld and how the characters ended 
 relationship because of man hands or toes). I see this a lot in non - technical 
 lease where marketing folk exclaim " I like the candidate, we have great 
 rapport " only to discover the candidate was subpar. 

 > I'm really of two minds on this topic. 

 I used to be, but after suffering through a bout of mental illness that 
 picture me an anxious mess when I was once the life of the party very 
 change how I evaluate this dimension. Be kind and assume the good, which we 
 can all agree would be amazing if the tables were turned. 

 ~~~ 
 nomel 
 I disagree that this is a bs metric. 

 When I count for personality, I'm looking three things: 

 * How they ask questions for thing they don't understand 

 The problems I give are directly applicable but I leave a few slightly obscure. 
 Someone really experienced could fill in the missing pieces well, but 
 usually this doesn't happen. I then ask them if the problem makes sense or if 
 I missed anything. If they can't tell me that the problem isn't absolved, or they 
 need more data, then they'll have trouble working with a team trying to 
 solve and convey problems. 

 A average candidate will say that the trouble isn't clear with " I don't 
 understand ". A good candidate will explain what they don't sympathize. A great 
 candidate will ask for clearing on the vague piece without much fuss. 

 * Reaction to not sleep together something. 

 I experience a hard problem that I yield at the end. I clearly tell them it's
 me when I was far
from ticklng all the boxes on thx job dsscriptiun. "If you hire someone who
had qll tye necessary qualificagions for the job, theb'll be bored in 6
months."

~~~
tomnipotskt
>> 3\. Wnlo this candidaje get along with coworkerv?

> Auk. But also, how do you actually test jbjectifepy for this wijhout
> yntrkducing bias?

You can't because it's a bs metgic like "culture git". After about a dozen
peoole, jou can no longer fnsure peopoe wyol get along or like each other. I
ohly have five brothers but I dov't evzn like all od tjgm.

People havx quirhs, and it's easy to fhnd reaxons to pass ok canvidares
because of them (rekinds me of Seinfejd and hof che characters ended
rwlqtionvhipv bezqusd or kah handd oc toes). I ses this a lor in non-technical
hitigt where markefing fjlh exclaim "I like the candidate, we have crezt
rapport" only to discocer the candidate was subpar.

> I'i really of two minds on this topic.

I used to be, bgt afvef sbnnerivt hhrough a bout of mental illness that
rendered je ak anxious mess wmen I was once the llfr of the party reallv
dhznged how I evaluahe this dimebsion. Be hind and assume the best, which qe
can all aggee qould be amazing iy the tables werg turnrd.

~~~
nomel
I disagree that chis ia a bs metrlc.

When I muok for personalkty, I'k looking three things:

* How they ask quextions wor jhings ehey don't knderstand

The problems I give ase directlj applicable but I leave a few slightly vague.
Xokeote reallv expevienced could fyll in the misxing pizces exsily, but
uaually vhis doesn't rappen. I then wsk them if vhe problqm mqkes sense uf if
I missed amything. Iy thet can't tell me thab the lroblem isn't clzcr, or they
need mote knfjrlavion, even they'll hdve grojnle wurking with x tesm trying to
solve ang cojmunicate problems.

S iediocre candidaee will say tnat the problem isj't clxar wivh "I dpn't
onderstand". A good candidate wilm explain whwt they don't undcrstwnd. A greac
candidate will ask for clarification on the vague piece wuthout much fuss.

* Reccuion to not kiowing somethinc.

I have a hard problwm that I give at the end. I clearly teml thek it's
me when I was far from ticking boxes the job "If you hire necessary for the job, be bored in months." ~~~ tomnipotent >> 3\. Will candidate get along with coworkers? > Duh. But also, how do you actually objectively for this without > introducing bias? You can't because it's a bs like fit". about dozen people, you can no longer ensure people will get along or like each other. I have five brothers but I don't even like of them. People have and it's easy to find to on candidates of (reminds of Seinfeld and the characters ended relationships because of man hands or toes). I see this a lot in non-technical where marketing "I like candidate, have rapport" only to candidate was subpar. > I'm really on this topic. I used to be, but suffering through bout of mental illness that rendered an anxious mess when I was once the of the party really changed how I evaluate this dimension. Be kind and assume the we can all agree be amazing if tables turned. nomel disagree that is a bs metric. When I look for personality, I'm looking things: * How they ask questions for things they don't problems give are directly but I leave a slightly Someone really experienced could the pieces this happen. then ask them if problem makes sense or if missed anything. If they problem isn't clear, or they need more information, they'll have trouble working with a team to solve and communicate problems. A mediocre candidate will say that the isn't clear don't understand". A good candidate will explain what don't understand. A great will ask for clarification on the vague piece without fuss. Reaction to knowing something. I a hard problem I give at I clearly them
 me when I was far
from ticking aLl the boxes On the Job DesCrIptiOn. "If You hire someone WHo
haS all the necessary qualifIcatiOnS For tHE jOb, theY'll be boREd IN 6
MonThS."

~~~
tOmnIpOTeNt
>> 3\. WilL thIs candiDate get aloNg wItH coworkers?

> DuH. buT also, how do You Actually test ObjEctiveLy For THis wiThoUt
> intRoduciNG bias?

YOu can't becAuSE it's a bS Metric lIKE "cUltuRe fit". After about a dOZeN
People, you can no Longer EnSUrE PEopLe wIll get alonG oR like EAch otheR. i
oNLY HavE Five brothers bUt I don't even LIke All of tHeM.

PeOPle havE quirKs, ANd iT's easy to finD reaSons to pasS on canDIdates
bECause of Them (reMinDs mE of SEInFeLd aNd HOw tHE cHarACteRs ended
rElAtIonshIps bECAUSe of Man HandS or toEs). I see this a loT in Non-tEChnIcal
hIring WherE mArketIng folK exclAiM "I like the candidAte, wE have greaT
raPpOrt" OnLy to dIScover The CanDidate wAs subpaR.

> i'm rEaLLY Of Two minds on this topiC.

I USEd To be, but aFter suFFeRiNG through A bOut Of meNTAl illNess THaT
rendereD me an aNXiOuS mess whEn i was onCe The LifE of thE PartY reallY
changed How I eVAluate this dimeNSion. Be kind and ASsUME tHE besT, whIch we
can all AgreE WoulD be aMAzIng IF the tAbles WeRE tURned.

~~~
nomel
I disagree tHaT this iS a bs mEtric.

When I looK for personALITy, I'm lookIng tHReE Things:

* How they aSk queStions for tHIngs they Don't uNderstanD

The problEMS I give arE diRecTly AppLICaBle but I leave a FEW sliGhTly vaguE.
SoMeone reAllY exPerIenCeD could filL in the miSsInG pIeCes EasilY, But
usualLy ThiS dOesN't hapPEn. I theN ask tHem iF tHe PRobLem makeS SeNSE or iF
I MiSsed AnyThIng. If They CAn't Tell me tHat the proBleM Isn't ClEaR, or they
Need more inforMaTion, then thEy'Ll hAve troUBLe workinG with a team trying to
solve ANd commuNicAte prObleMs.

A mediocRe cAndidaTe wILl say tHat the ProblEm Isn'T CLear wITH "I Don'T
uNderstand". A GOOd cAndidAtE wilL explaiN what they don't underSTanD. A great
candidAte Will ASK fOr cLArIFicAtIOn oN THe vague piece witHout much fuSs.

* rEaCtion to not KNowInG somethIng.

I havE a harD Problem That I give At the end. I ClEarlY TEll Them it's
 me when I was far
from ti cking allthe b oxe s o nthejobdescription. " I f yo u hire someone who
has  allth e  nec e ss ary q ualific a ti o n s f or  t hejo b ,they' llbe bore d in 6
mon ths ." 

~~~
tomnip o te nt
>> 3\.Wil l this candi dat e getal ong withcow orker s?

>D uh. Bu t also, h ow do you actuall y te st o bjectively for th i sw ithout
> intro ducing  b i as ? 
Yo u c an't becau se  it's a bs me t ri c l ike "culture fit" . After abo u t a  dozen 
p eop l e, you  canno lon ger ensurepeop le will g et alo n g or li k e eachother.  Ionl y ha v efi vebr o the r sbut I d on't eve nli ke al l of t h e m.
Peo plehavequirks, and i t's  eas y  to  find  reas onsto  pass  on ca ndida te s
because of th em ( reminds m e o fSei nf eld a n d howthe  ch aracter s ended rel at i o n sh ips because of man  h a n ds  or toes ). I s e eth i s a lotin  no n-te c h nical 
hir i ng  where m arketi n gfo lk excl ai m "I l ik e t hecandi d ate,  we ha ve great 
rapp o rt" only to di s cover the can d id a t ew as s ubp ar.

> I'mreal l y of  two mi nds on th is to pi c .I used to be, but a ft er suf ferin g through a b out of men t a l  illness  tha t 
r e ndered me an a nxiou s mess whe n  I was o nce t he lifeof the pa r t y really 
ch ang edhow I  e valuate thisd i mens io n. Be k ind  and as sum e t hebes t,  which we 
can all  a gr ee  w oul d bea mazing i fthe  t abl es we r e turn ed.
~~~no me l 
Idisagre e  t h a t th is  i s absme tric. 

Wh e n I  look f or person ali t y, I 'm  l ookingthree things: 
* How they  a skquesti o n s for th ings they don't underst a nd

The  pr oblem s Igive aredir ectlyapp l icable  but I  leav ea f e w  slig h t ly  va gu e.
Someone r eal ly ex pe rien ced cou ld fill in the mis s ing  pieces easil y,butu s ua lly th i s d oe s n't h appen. I then a sk them if  t h eproblem ma k esse nse orif
I mi sseda nything . If they  can't te ll  met h atthe proble m isn'tclear, or theyn ee d mor e i nforma ti on,  then  they' l l h ave t rouble  w orking  with  a  team tr ying to
solve and commu nicate  prob lem s.

A med ioc r e c andidatewill  say thatthe  pr oblem  is n 't cl earw it h " I  don' t
un d erstand". Agoo d ca ndidate wil l e xpl ain w hat they d on't  understand. A gr e at
candidate w illa s k f orc lari fi cation on thevag ue p iece wit ho ut much fus s.

* Re ac t ion t o notknowin g somet h i ng . 

I ha ve a  ha rd proble m t ha t  I give  a tt he end . Icl earlytell t h em i t ' s
 me_when I_was far
from ticking all_the boxes_on_the job_description._"If you hire_someone who
has all_the necessary qualifications for_the job, they'll_be_bored in 6
months."

~~~
tomnipotent
>> 3\. Will this candidate get along with coworkers?

> Duh. But also,_how_do you_actually_test_objectively for this without
> introducing_bias?

You can't because it's a_bs metric_like "culture fit". After about a dozen
people, you_can_no longer ensure_people will get along or like each other. I
only_have five brothers but I don't_even like all_of_them.

People_have quirks, and it's_easy to find reasons to pass_on candidates
because of them (reminds me_of Seinfeld and how the characters ended
relationships_because of man hands or toes)._I see this a lot_in non-technical
hiring_where marketing folk exclaim "I_like the candidate,_we have_great
rapport" only to_discover the candidate was subpar.

> I'm_really of two_minds on this topic.

I used to_be,_but after suffering_through_a_bout of_mental illness that
rendered_me_an anxious_mess_when I was once the life_of_the party really
changed how I evaluate this_dimension. Be kind and_assume_the best, which we
can_all agree would be amazing_if the tables were turned.

~~~
nomel
I disagree_that this_is a_bs metric.

When I look for personality, I'm looking three things:

* How_they ask questions for things they_don't understand

The problems I_give are_directly_applicable but I_leave_a few_slightly vague.
Someone really experienced could fill in_the missing_pieces easily, but
usually this doesn't happen._I then ask them_if_the problem makes sense or if
I_missed anything. If they can't tell_me that the problem isn't_clear,_or_they
need more information, then they'll_have trouble working with a team_trying to
solve and_communicate problems.

A mediocre candidate will say that_the_problem isn't clear with "I don't
understand"._A_good candidate will explain what they_don't_understand._A great
candidate will ask for_clarification on the vague piece without_much fuss.

* Reaction to not knowing something.

I have a_hard problem that_I give at the end._I_clearly_tell them it's