Hacker News Reader

It's tough on an interview to get a feel for how a person is in day-to-day conversation. So the interviewers are looking for areas of common interest to talk about. If they are young, they may have a limited repertoire of topics that usually work; if you shut down all of their ideas for conversation, I hope you at least tried to come up with some topics of your own. Otherwise, you won't have a conversation, and they won't get a feel for you, and that's a bad thing.

I don't know if you've ever actually said "I don't have hobbies" in an interview, but that could likely come off as negative. Your hobbies are your kids, or your house, or reading, or cooking, or watching TV, or whatever you do with your time at home. And all of those are at least something that might start a conversation, which is the whole point. Hell, even saying "I used to play PC games, here are the classics I liked" could be a conversation starter.

Thank you for illustrating what is wrong with "culture fit". There is no need to require candidates to be buds with the team. " maturity" "Professionalism" used to be a virtue that adults aspired to, until young adults decided to hack the system and turn the "Good ol' boys" club into a "good youn' boys" club.

Professionalism can be dehumanizing just as camaraderie can be alienating. I don't think either, alone, is a virtue. We need both to communicate and work effectively.

Kids and house aren't hobbies. They're responsibilities.

They can be both.

> an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation:

You're basically positing a definition of "hobby" that encompasses everything that isn't working. Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation. It can be relaxing and pleasurable, but so can showers and eating--that doesn't make it a hobby. Hobbies are things you do optionally.

> Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation.

Contraceptives exist and work (for the most part), so caring for children is an opt-in activity. And even if it wasn't - it is totally possible to turn cooking or eating into a hobby by going beyond what's necessary to survive, and the same applies to caring for children.

As a late-twenties programmer without children, I'd have a lot of respect for anyone who mentions his/her kids as his/her hobby.

I guess you could stick to the strict definition, but then you're sitting in the lunch in awkward silence.

Or you could say "I love fixing up my old house. I'm a big fan of Bob Villa, and he inspired me to get a fixer-upper. Most recently I've been putting in a new hardwood floor. It's a lot of trips to Home Depot, and a lot of reading old Time-Life books..."

Which person seems like they will be easier to work with, and an efficient communicator?

I understand not drinking and not playing video games, but saying that you have no hobbies would be pretty weird in an interview. They're just trying to get to know you. Hopefully you follow it up with some personal detail that distinguishes you from a robot.

"Hopefully you follow it up with some personal detail that distinguishes you from a robot."

He mentioned having a family. That pretty much means he's not a robot.

Which an employer may not want to ask for or know about since family status is a protected class in some jurisdictions.

"On May 11, 2014, Governor Mark Dayton signed the Women’s Economic Security Act (WESA), which amended the prohibitions against employment discrimination in the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Now, discrimination based on “familial status” in hiring, promotion, retention and other employment decisions is illegal in Minnesota." [1]

[1] http://mn.gov/mdhr/employers/familial_status.html

Distinguishes you from a robot, WHEN?

After the 80 hours a week spent at work, 56 hours a week spent sleeping (going to work while sleep deprived is like going to work drunk, so they do expect you to sleep!), 3.5 hours a week spent showering (and they do expect you to come to work clean, wonder why), 10 hours a week spent in commuting to work, 7 hours a week spent on feeding yourself (and they do expect you to eat so you can work (I can spend weeks without eating, but then I won't be productive)), 4 hours a week to buy the groceries, and 7 hours a week spent on the internet or TV, there remains NO time for any hobby.

So if they want hobbies, they will have to reduce drastically work time.

Let's start from 80 hours a week spent at work. Red flag #1. Don't know why you would assume that's necessary

3.5 hours/week showering. Red flag #2. Even if you shower every single day, if you're spending 30 minutes in the shower each time you might as well call it a hobby. Unless you've got long luxurious hair, you should be able to get everything done in 10 minutes.

10 hours commuting, so 1 hour each way? #3 How much do you value your time? Clearly if you can't think of a hobby, not very much. If you did, you'd pay extra to not waste 2 hours every day wasted. But wait...why are you wasting that time? Can you read? Listen to audio books? Work on a side project? Even day dream and think? If you have to drive, can you switch from driving to motorcycling, and make that a hobby?

It sounds like you WANT to throw yourself into work, and spend all your energy and time into it as an excuse for lacking the ability to become a fully developed multi-faceted human being. And that is on you, not on your employer.

I have long, luxurious hair. Hair only stays long and luxurious if you don't wash it daily. My showers go from 5 minutes to 10-15 minutes on hair wash days.

He used the word "shower", but I think he meant the time it takes to look respectable - so please add drying after shower, shaving, toilet trip(s), dressing, etc.

I would subtract 20 hours from being at work. And you can shorten your commute if you choose to move. Many places are fine with you working on the train while commuting, or just working from home some days.

If these are honestly the amounts of time you devote to these things, then you need to make a big change. If you're working 80 hours per week and can't afford to live closer to work, you're working the wrong job. Unless you're a founder (and really, even then it should be temporary), 80 hours is an unreasonable expectation from management. Showering shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Groceries shouldn't take 4 hours per week to buy. Conversely, you should probably spend more than 7 hours per week eating, and hopefully with other people who you care about. You could easily free up ~40 hours to spend time with your friends and family or developing a hobby. It would be good for your long term health and happiness too.

I would never hire someone who overworks. There's too much risk of bad quality work in the short term, upset/grumbling workers in the mid term and depressive people in the long term. Brains need refreshment and creativity needs a full life outside work. When you build your company, your own ecosystem is a healthy as the lifestyle of the people who make it.

But again, this is valid in Australia and France. I know that people work too much in SF/US.

I don't know anyone who actually works 80 hours a week and I'm in NYC. They're all exaggerating. Most I know of is 60 and he loves it (finance). I'm in one of the most prominent coworking spaces in the city full of startups and the place is a ghost town after 7pm and before 9:30am.

I hate the hobbies question in interviews. I work 60 hours a week and have a toddler. My hobby is sleeping. What the hell else else do you want from me?

I have a bike which I rarely ride. My interview hobby is cycling (reading books also works). Silly questions deserve silly answers.

I use hiking and reading.

This is a lot easier to explain to a stranger who forming a judgement than "in the rare moments I'm not watching my kids, working, cleaning, or sleeping, I like to go shoot guns that I built."

I have a life that I put down hobbies for. It would be unfair to call my kids, my love life, social events with friends, and keeping up with my necessary life (bills, laundry, groceries, etc.) hobbies. But that's all I have time for, after I hold down a regular job. It's just plain ignorant for younger teams to expect a rockstar in AND out of the office.

Actually, I think those would be acceptable answers. As a young person who works with older coworkers, I'm perfectly willing to talk to you about your kids or buying groceries. I just want to relate to you in a conversation that isn't about work.

It's fine to relate, and I'm pretty sure we all need that. That's why I list hobbies/interests, as a point of departure from strictly relevant professional topics in a résumé. But it's also against most HR policies to ask about family-anything because few can do it without crossing some liability boundaries. This is a good conversation to have.

I was interviewing Java developers for Booz Allen when I rant into a candidate that was super-smart but had no hobbies except for coding in his spare time.

I thought it was a negative because the hiring managers and recruiters were pressing for a well-rounded person with "hobbies" and interests outside of work. However, the team lead for Java developers considered the super-focus on coding a plus.

In retrospect, all of these different factors were just subjective and not a good way to evaluate candidates potential effectiveness on the job.

Talking about a hobby as if you still do it, in order to get the job and provide for your family, is not a lie anyone sane would say matters. Next time, don't sweat it.

Seriously? You'd take a job that requires that you lie about your personal life?

Agreed on your incredulity. I've never understood ethics behind such type of advice.

File it under Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".

If there could ever be a treatise on psychopathy, that'd be it.

I wouldn't defend hiring based on hobbies, but it's pretty easy to make a comment like "I really like X, but these days I mostly do stuff with my family..." and it's a lot more human sounding than "I have no hobbies."

No job requires you to lie about your personal life, but if they're willing to give you credit for a lie that doesn't matter at all - why the hell not?

Although having said that, judging you so much on your "fit" is a pretty big red flag.

It may not matter to them at all, but shouldn't it matter to you?

With this stance, you and the OP are uncompromising on this issue which can be viewed as good or bad depending on context but I think in this case it's very unfavorable.

Everyone has hobbies just take the time to think about it and you will come up with something better than "none" which is not really exciting to hear and might send the wrong signal to the recruiter that you are not interested enough in the opening position.

Thanks. I'm aware it's always an option, but I've been lucky so far to never be in a position where I need that job.

The greater implication of my post, IMO, is that as I age I'm more experienced but less attractive to some employers solely based on my age. I already look about five years older than I am, so perhaps my career will be much more short-lived than I anticipate and I will have no say in it. That actually terrifies me.

Sure, we all know how to get the job. That doesn't make the expectation or the question less specious.

I guess I'm insane, then.

If beer is an interview subject, the "brogrammer" culture has gotten out of hand. Now what, the three-martini lunch of the 1950s? (See "Mad Men".) No wonder we see so much crap code.

Here's a comment from an Ask HN I started pertaining to hiring: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9760639

I think it addresses the issue of not getting an offer because the existing team doesn't connect on as private/personal level.

Yep, I've always believes that there are times when you find yourself in a place you shouldn't be in. It isn't their fault and it isn't your fault, just different people who don't mesh and it's best to admit to it and walk away.

The cultural fit thing can be important in that a negative nancy can seriously cause problems in a group, to the point of people leaving due to getting such a negative view of management/business over time from the constant negativity.

It's a hard thing because there are definitely people you don't want to hire due to 'fit', but it's so hard to get it even fairly right.

> a negative nancy can seriously cause problems in a group

I consider a negative Nate an attitude issue not a cultural fit issue. If I picked up on a negative attitude during ht interview, the candidate probably won't be offered the position.

How is a person's attitude not relevant to culture? Change everyone's attitude in the company: has the culture not changed?

Not to sound insulting, though this might be, but without knowing more details I'm going to assume you're failing at the soft interview questions. In an industry where creativity is just as important as engineering knowledge, it's absolutely critical that you nail your soft interview questions.

Don't be afraid or insulted by them, OWN them. Spend time this weekend thinking about what exactly your hobbies are. You definitely have them, even if it's spending time cleaning up baby mess. Think about things that bring a smile to your face and can project to others what your passions are in life.

Never lie and it bothers me that some replies below mention that as an option. However, do MARKET yourself.

The reason these interviewers are mentioning craft-beer to you is because they're trying to get inside your head and see what makes you tick. Beer is an easy way in SF to connect with a lot of people. So yea, no one cares you don't like beer, and I know plenty of people don't drink at all. I promise that that's not why you're not getting an offer. :)

I would disagree that they are soft questions and just say that they're just bad and useless questions. The expectation tends to be that the candidate takes whatever is thrown at them, and in practice it does make a little sense: once you're in the interview, you're in the interview. But here, commenting on a forum, I'd rather push back and ask interviewers to stop asking questions that don't achieve anything useful, and won't achieve the insights they might imagine.

So instead of soft questions asking about hobbies, and excluding all the many examples of people families, why not talk about interesting on-the-job experiences? As one example. Interviewing well is a tough gig, but that's no excuse for continuing to do it poorly.

I would immediately hire you - just based on what I read. Seriously. I hate stereotypes, and not allowing people to differ from the average. I also don't drink alcohol, and I don't watch TV or sports. Every time someone says something cryptic I assume it's baseball-related, and I'm right about 40% of the time.

Well, you're just doing the same exact thing. Instead of hiring someone who might watch a bit of baseball or grab a beer every once in a while, you'd prefer to hire someone just like you. That's still not good.

> until we discovered the changes he had made to how things were stored in the database without considering the full implications.

sounds like he found the faults in your infrastructure, you should be thanking him