Hacker News Reader

Comment by ng12 | Hacker News Reader

Here's a question: what if I don't want to hire people like that? If you know something about underwater basket weaving I absolutely expect you speak up when we're considering switching to twine from seagrass. I don't want you to keep quiet and let us make a bad decision because you're concerned your knowledge is invalid.

View on HN

Then you're selecting for people who are overconfident blowhards, who don't really know as much as they think they do.

but what ng is saying is that if someone is lacks too much confidence they are not useful. His example shows this --- the under confidant but knowledgable person does not contribute their knowledge when needed so they are not useful despite their knowledge.

Not useful? That's harsh.

Could it be argued that not enough care is being taken by the team to solicit the thoughts of the less shouty members? If an organisation didn't want to hire or deal with said folk, perhaps it's a good thing for those looked over?

Research seems to suggest that a more diverse workforce (of all varieties) leads to more successful businesses. And my own personal experience leads me to believe that skilled folk come in some weird and wonderful packages. I know which path I would choose.

Being more confident than average is not the same thing as being overconfident.

Tech interview would be an answer. Quiz applicants whether they know what they claim to know. Slashdot crowd will complain and maybe write a medium article, but so what.

Guess you better make sure the people you hire can do what they claim to be able to do.

Or at least what you need them to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com