Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthepanda | Hacker News Reader

i'm surprised people bother asking questions this inane. (or at least surprised people think they get value out of this.)

View on HN

If someone responds with “10” and fails to answer basic questions about that specific topic you know that the person is either lying or is overly confident.

there are so many other ways to figure out if a person is not an expert. like just asking them basic questions without the bs.

To be fair, the BS is probably a regular part of the job at that company, so it's a good way to signal that to the candidate.

If they selected "5" and failed to answer the same question, would they be a hire? If not, what's gained by having them self-assess?

I imagine the answer might be "we wouldn't waste time talking to them", but then, you just created an incentive for a person who would otherwise rate themselves as "5", "6", or "7" to pick a higher number in hope of squeezing through. You then penalize that in the interview process. Seems pretty counterproductive?

It's not intended to be the only question we ask, it's just another data point. That's why you do a full interview.

To your point, though, even saying 5 and not being able to answer basic questions would be a huge red flag.

It's bullshit psychological gaming. Obviously 1–6 are right out. Can't pick any of those. 10 is also out. (You're not that arrogant, are you?)

So the question becomes: "7, 8, or 9?"

Still some strategy to think about here. If you answer "7", then you're saying, "I'm not that good but even I know not to answer lower than 7". Answering "9" is similar, except you're saying you know better than to go full self-aggrandizement.

Yup. Nothing of value is gleaned from this question.

> 10 is also out.

I recall an amusing HN story from a couple years ago: $candidate was asked about his proficiency with $open_source_program. $candidate was challenged on his not-so-humble answer ...and then suggested that the interviewer compare his name with that of the author/lead maintainer of $open_source_program.

> So the question becomes: "7, 8, or 9?"

I'd throw in a few plausibly-relevant things that zero-ish candidates will have meaningful proficiency at, as an honesty test.

Reminds me of the self assessment part of the yearly reviews at my job. No one is going to give themselves a below average rating on any question and generally score themselves higher than normal hoping their boss agrees on at least a couple of the questions.

> It's bullshit psychological gaming. Obviously 1–6 are right out. Can't pick any of those. 10 is also out. (You're not that arrogant, are you?)

Context matters. Back in 2007, a Google recruiter asked me to rate myself 1–10 on maybe 20 different areas. I gave a bunch of 1–6s, probably a couple 7s, maybe an 8 (don't remember), no 9s or 10s. My interviews focused on the areas I'd self-assessed most highly on, and I got hired.

They set expectations as described in my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40907661

This is a good point. If I'm being offered a list of skills to rate myself on, I'd have no trouble marking a 1 for COBOL or a 4 for PowerShell.

Same goes for the 9s or 10s. If it's an area I've truly mastered, then that 9/10 becomes a good starting point for discussion in an area I'm really confident in.

from what you wrote, sounds like 8 is a solid answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com