johnsmith4739

Insanity, right? Let me add another one - have you seen how they advertise job openings? With the "technical specifications." It's like they actively try to do a bad job.

We only worked with founders that are involved in the recruiting process. 2, maybe 3 "dates" and you should be able to decide with clarity.

I love it! What if I am the owner? Is then "guilty capitalism?"

Personality tests are broken - there is no way a functioning human being will answer them truthfully. Not for the lack of trying... our subconscious will try to protect us and we'll answer in a way we imagine it is socially acceptable.

Amazes me how little data-driven recruiting is. Just as the author puts it, a good hire is for culture ad, and that means being explicitly aware of what's missing. Tough stuff to really look inside and see what's missing.

Most hires I see are either out of desperation or because the recruiter had a good chemistry with the candidate. A 1h interview means 0,3% of the time I will work with that person in one year. Talk about a small sample size.

(shameless plug): I built this for figuring out the candidate personality: https://freyasense.com/recruiting/

(disclaimer: I do this for a living) First, what is the purpose of the feedback?

NPS and similar are old-school corporate CYA tactics. Today you can look at the attributions for referrals and work with what people do not just say.

For improvement (e.g. you want to increase on-boarding completion rate) you need behavioural interviews.

Here are my latest channels: hubspot, email, intercom, inapp. Why I chose one or the other was determined by target audience (who I want to gather info from) + relevance (how close to the moment I want to find out about can I get) + tech capabilities (what is possible technically speaking).

Prior to this decision there was extensive behavioural mapping and profiling. It is the only way you can get quality responses, as user feedback is mostly qualitative.

Let me know if I can help

Clarity is underrated. There's a confusion here: No AI - no human for that matter - can recognise emotions. At best, they can recognise an expression - a physiological response - associated with an emotion. This distinction is essential because:

//> every conference had those emotional recognition tv screens/camera gizmos and people had so much fun playing with those, mainly because how easy is to fool them

//> the same stimulus can trigger every single possible emotion, depending on context and personal patterns

//> emotional responses are both instinctual and learned (inuits seldom show anger, while other cultures make a spectacle out of it)

This whole AI story is a cold path. Without context AI is an idiot savant. Wanna' see what is actually going on?

I do behavioural research and inform messaging. For this, I need to understand what makes people behave one way or another. Turns out, every emotion is like a little app that tells you what to do. People churn from your app on-boarding process? They encounter an unexpected barrier and their emotional response is mediated by anger, making them ragequit. My intervention is too manage expectations better and the emotional response is diminished. On-boarding rate improves 21%

All I need is a small randomised sample (200 for every 100k users), I recognise emotional patterns and grade them with something similar to Bayes factors.

I share the feeling of others here: this AI story is just another application of surveillance for the purpose of manipulation. So if it's not stupid, it's evil. And of course our collective response is to avoid or deceive.

How about empathy? Things would be much better if we would feel actually understood not manipulated.

Recruiting - behavioural interviews to be precise - and you're pretty close, I work with methodologies developed by law enforcement/intelligence as well as psychotherapy.

Recruiting

You're completely right (and this, my friend, is a lie).

...after all, in the end is not truth most situations are about, but power. Tell the truth, you're exposed, vulnerable. Tell something else - a lie sometimes - and the balance of power is restored. For good or bad, who am I to judge.

I hope it is ok to share this here: https://freyasense.com/recruiting/

Give me a sign and I would be happy to give you a tour

>> Psychologists have long known how hard it is to spot a liar.

Absolutely this.

Lying is a loose concept. Is it lying if I believe it is true? Is it lying if it's just an omission of truth?

You can spot nervousness, you can spot defiance.

I work in a field where people deceive almost 80% of the time, and less than 1 in 10 where caught. The way we approach this is by flanking. Using falsifiable questions the subject cannot determine your intentions, therefore is much more likely to tell the truth (less cognitive taxing).

> I don't know of any approach to interviewing that I think is fair.

That is true, because it was my motivation to build a wizard for behavioural interviews designed to remove biases and be objective. In practice, most of the time people are not even sure what they are looking for - I know it when I see it - and default to gut hiring. This leads to teams made of people that think like you, so you're basically paying 2 salaries for one brain.

My formula for removing biases is in 2 steps: first define explicitly the behavioural traits you desire, and second, use falsifiable questions to determine the truth.

Because we're here to help each other, if this is relevant to you, I'd be happy to share this solution with you.

try this: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-psycholo...

Happy to do so, here is the data I operate with:

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is supposed to provide a prioritisation of needs - physical needs take priority over self-actualisation. If the model is wrong you would see many inversions. As in people prioritising self-actualisation to shelter - live in worse situation but get a better education. Therefore the pyramid does not provide a model that can reflect reality in an accurate way and we have inversions all over the place - from students going to better universities to people climbing dangerous summits.

There is a much better model - based in neuroscience, meaning that it has physiological proof to back it up. The Grawe consistency theory (neuropsychotherapy) has a much simpler approach:

3 needs we share with the whole living entities: Orientation/Control; Pleasure Maximisation/Pain Minimisation; Attachment; and one specific to humans Self-Enhancement (my work is, among others, focused on what causes this specific need, btw)

The needs are acted out through "behavioural schemas" - either approach or avoidance behaviours.

With this basic model you can empathise much better with anyone - when they do this, do they want to get something or get away from something? Does that give them more or less control, or maybe attachment? Nothing in Maslow's model can deliver this kind of understanding.

Win-Win is related to behavioural change, that is rooted in empathy. How can you change behaviours if you don't understand them? Win-Win (Harvard model) is competing with the FBI model of behavioural change (the stairway). While the former implicitly expects us to be rather similar (playing the role of businessmen) the latter does away with ego and focuses all efforts in understanding the overt and subconscious motives of the other part, and then presents a solution that is connected to that. And it works much better in practice, mainly because is meant to work when our motives can seem incompatible - try a win-win with a hostage-taker.

Anyway, remember that all models are wrong, but some of them are more useful. Part of this journey is to practice models and see what helps you get the results you want.

(disclaimer?) I teach empathy, and maybe this helps:

1 - most people did not get what is called an "emotional education." What are emotions and how they guide our behaviour? What are habits and how they differ from intentional activities? What motivates human behaviour? What are biases and how they actually help us 98% of the time, etc.

2 - most people are exposed to pseudoscience and outright wrong information - jungian personality types, maslow's pyramid of needs, win-win negotiations, and so many other models only generate confusion and unproductive biases

And to work toward a solution:

1 - read up on psychology, there are many 101s good enough to get you a head start

2 - read on subjects as "active listening," jobs-to-be-done, non-violent communication, and "FBI behavioural change stairway"

And find a practice-buddy. I work pro-bono with a couple of fellow startup founders exactly on this skill, because our day-to-day work forces us most of the time in a problem-solution mentality. It is so much more precious to get and offer understanding, the non-judgemental type, and acceptance, without any intention of change.

Let me know if I can be of service here

The conclusion is as moronic as the rest of the article. Every single organ in the body "truly rests" only when dead.

Exactly, this is the core concept of homeostasis. Organism in equilibrium? Passive. Stimuli toy with the balance? Compensatory behaviour to restore equilibrium. Humans work just the same, the only difference is the complex brains that allow complex compensatory behaviours.

(citation needed) here is an alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts_in_Transylvania

What a great find, thank you

I will give this a try, looks promising

Co-founder, 3rd startup, helped a handful of others grow.

I meekly suggest a different framing or mindset.

It is less "this idea is good or bad / market demanded it or not" - which suggests a passive, fixed worldview - I propose a more proactive approach: "am I able to make people adopt our solution or not."

If you launch something innovative (i.e. not 1-1 comparable with existing alternatives) your effective market is 0. This applies even more if you create a new category. So you can be faced with the situation where market demand cannot be satisfied unless you know how to reshape its adoption dynamics.

In this case, validation has multiple pieces that have to come together: is there compensatory behaviour to prove that existing solutions are underdelivering; can we identify an early adopter psychographic looking for a specific feature set we're able to create; do we have a way to get to them;

"several studies have shown that individuals demonstrate a preference for choice, or the availability of multiple options, over and above utilitarian value." -> yes, it is called the need for orientation/control and "utilitarian value" has nothing to do with it -> Index Funds vs. Actively-Managed Funds -> people prefer the latter even if the returns are consistently lower. [1]

"Yet we lack a decision-making framework that integrates preference for choice with traditional utility maximisation in free choice behaviour." -> utility maximisation "has charm for economists, but it rests on the shaky foundation of an implausible and untestable assumption" - Daniel Kahneman [2] -> TL;DR the author of "Thinking Fast and Slow" proves it false

"We found that participants were biased towards states that kept their options open, even when both states were balanced in the total number of goal locations. This bias was evident not only when both contexts were equally valuable but throughout all value conditions..." AND "Participants were not informed of the precise values ..." -> seeing the utilitarian variable being forced upon conclusions is disheartening

[1] https://www.thebalance.com/index-funds-vs-actively-managed-f... [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=870494