What I learned from Howard Stern about interviewing people
growingsoftware.org
growingsoftware.org
This is very useful Usenet+ trick to get an answer to a question. You could be nice and simply ask a question: "How can I do X in Y?" and you might get an answer. Maybe.
Or you could simply assert, "It is impossible to do X in Y", and get a flood of replies because, well, xkcd 386 should cover it.
edit: It occurred to me that there may be a practical way to spin this when getting software requirements. For example, you could simply ask, "Is <some quality or feature or behavior> important?" Ir you could phrase it as an assertion: "OK, so I'm assuming that <some quality or feature or behavior> is not important." Or some variation.
I wonder if that difference in phrasing leads to getting better details. That is, in what way does how you phrase something (question or assertion, positive or negative) push a response in one direction or another?
Troll: "HTML is a programming language"
Gullible douchebag: "%s" % wikipedia_article_on_HTML
Troll: "Troll successful"Further, what it really depressing is that often, if you simply ask the question, many usenet replies will be "google it" (1) type answers. So, you go to a NG which is for a subject, you ask about that subject, and people there think you should already know the answer before going to the place meant to discuss it.
(1)Used to be "google is your friend", but oddly enough, I dont see that so much these days.
Works for me because I care more about winning than being right, so I'm not embarrassed to be wrong.
Lot's of reasons people withhold information for whatever reason. Most geeks are introverts, so are reluctant to speak up. Some people don't want to be embarrassed. Many, many aren't aware of what they know. It's easier to criticize than to create. And, yes, some people are gate keepers, hoarding information.
I remember reading Mitnick used this trick a fair bit.
Deliberate False Statements / Denial of the Obvious: Say something wrong in the hopes that the person will correct your statement with true information. “Everybody knows that process won’t work—it’s just a DARPA dream project that will never get off the ground.”
[1]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/...
I don't really appreciate his humour, but analysing his conversations is very interesting and educational.
I saw the same thing when Prince Charles was interviewed by 60 Minutes, where Prince Charles effortlessly parried every tactic tried by the reporter.
So if you wanted to get him to play for you, you merely had to poorly play one of his works, and he would be so annoyed that he would react by playing it the right way).
I wish I remember where I read this (hadn't thought of it in years, so I may have details wrong, but the premise is the same).
Woops. I mean: The Louis CK video does not have a single example of the author's thesis in it!
If you don't have to follow the broadcast rules, you can ask questions nobody else can.
If you hire a black female as your co-host people won't be so quick to call you a racist or sexist.
(that's what I learned)
> "The Interviews are more interesting if the person is naked."
> "If you don't have to follow the broadcast rules, you can ask questions nobody else can."
> "If you hire a black female as your co-host people won't be so quick to call you a racist or sexist."
I'd like to add that it's true that now that Howard is on Sirius he can be more graphic in his questions, but even when he was on terrestrial radio he asked questions nobody else did.
It's also quite clear to anyone who's a fan of the show that Robin was not hired so that Howard could get away with racism or sexism. Robin wasn't even hired by Howard when they first met.
Pfft, every successful entrepreneur I've met from the Kansai area of Japan does this. The first step is knowing the price of everything, isn't it?