The single best interview question you can ask (2021)(fs.blog)
fs.blog
The single best interview question you can ask (2021)
https://fs.blog/the-single-best-interview-question-you-can-ask/
45 comments
Why is that noteworthy with regards to the article or the question? Is it just so you can try to invalidate his point by using the phrase "anti-democratic political right wing"?
Well, if someone says "climate change caused by globalization of industrialization will destroy the world if it expands it's capacity without revolutionary technological changes", but then backs a party that is firmly committed to defending the problems (eg fossil fuels, car-based transit systems, deregulation of power generation, etc) that will destroy the world if scaled up, you have to wonder "what explains this extreme contradiction"?
Because it fits the description of "bad answer" given in the text, which includes "might be true, but many people already agree with them."
The requirement was that "very few people agree with you on" it.
My local science center has a chart showing how many Earths are needed if everyone on the planet uses the same average resources as someone from country "X", so we're not talking some sort of small minority topic.
The requirement was that "very few people agree with you on" it.
My local science center has a chart showing how many Earths are needed if everyone on the planet uses the same average resources as someone from country "X", so we're not talking some sort of small minority topic.
No you're pointing to the logic of the argument which the parent doubts, and indeed doesn't seem to be that much of a statement very few people agree on.
If you read my comment again, I was referring to why that needs to be followed with "anti-democratic political right wing" and his ties to Trump. What does that actually have to do with the topic of the best interview question and the poor example. The point doesn't change just because the one making the example is of any particular conviction and has no relevance to the topic.
If you read my comment again, I was referring to why that needs to be followed with "anti-democratic political right wing" and his ties to Trump. What does that actually have to do with the topic of the best interview question and the poor example. The point doesn't change just because the one making the example is of any particular conviction and has no relevance to the topic.
Why are Theil's views on an appropriate interview question of any significance whatsoever?
Have you read the article? Thiel quote is from there, it's the answer he gives to the "single best interview question" (as named by the article. I personally strongly disagree).
I see you did not read my g'parent comment in this thread, wherein you can see I read it.
notapenny questioned the relevance of SideburnsOfDoom's reference to the 'anti-democratic political right wing'. I mis-read it as notapenny not following the earlier part of SideburnsOfDoom's comment. notapenny corrected my mistake. I suggested SideburnsOfDoom's comment is still reasonable because we also have to ask why there's a link to a discussion of Thiel's views in the first place.
For examples: were he a Joe Blow, would we even be talking about it? How does his fame and wealth connect to his beliefs and action plans and to the type of people he wants to hire? Does future discussion of his views, w/o further context, unduly raise his fame or whitewash his views?
notapenny questioned the relevance of SideburnsOfDoom's reference to the 'anti-democratic political right wing'. I mis-read it as notapenny not following the earlier part of SideburnsOfDoom's comment. notapenny corrected my mistake. I suggested SideburnsOfDoom's comment is still reasonable because we also have to ask why there's a link to a discussion of Thiel's views in the first place.
For examples: were he a Joe Blow, would we even be talking about it? How does his fame and wealth connect to his beliefs and action plans and to the type of people he wants to hire? Does future discussion of his views, w/o further context, unduly raise his fame or whitewash his views?
Lol, yeah that's a good question. I guess that goes for just about anything including our thoughts on the topic. I guess that's up to the reader.
Can you draw a line from the example belief to the action?
Would you say that actions and speak louder than words, large donations louder than blog posts?
Is some topic drift OK in internet discussions?
(IMHO, yes to all)
Why does bringing this fact up, specifically upset you?
Would you say that actions and speak louder than words, large donations louder than blog posts?
Is some topic drift OK in internet discussions?
(IMHO, yes to all)
Why does bringing this fact up, specifically upset you?
Yes to all for me as well. Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. It'd just make the person uttering them a hypocrite or a liar. Or maybe just someone who can't live up to some idea they have, who knows.
You're inferring me being upset though and ignoring what I'm pointing out specifically; the language. It isn't the drift, it's how the drift.
You're inferring me being upset though and ignoring what I'm pointing out specifically; the language. It isn't the drift, it's how the drift.
> Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words.
I think that even when two people agree on the problem statement; political take might make them differ greatly on what they think the correct solution is. That doesn't "invalidate the words" even if you think that the proposed solution is e.g. unethical, impractical, not likely to actually fix the problem, captured by a big business, mere crowd-pleasing window-dressing, or otherwise inadvisable.
The actions indicate how a person responds to a belief. It's relevant.
For example, in the context of globalization, an answer is "just prevent the globalization of industrialization". An answer to immigration was "build a border wall". Supporting those answers might make you a bad person, will reveal a lot about your actual politics, but does not "invalidate the words".
I think that even when two people agree on the problem statement; political take might make them differ greatly on what they think the correct solution is. That doesn't "invalidate the words" even if you think that the proposed solution is e.g. unethical, impractical, not likely to actually fix the problem, captured by a big business, mere crowd-pleasing window-dressing, or otherwise inadvisable.
The actions indicate how a person responds to a belief. It's relevant.
For example, in the context of globalization, an answer is "just prevent the globalization of industrialization". An answer to immigration was "build a border wall". Supporting those answers might make you a bad person, will reveal a lot about your actual politics, but does not "invalidate the words".
In a debate when someone say they understand the motivation of their enemy and that the enemy is evil, this is often not very accurate.
When one side of the political side express why someone on the other side is doing something, then it is good to take a big chunk of salt..
What is evil?
I don't believe that Thiel wants harm to come to people as a primary goal. But I do believe that he and I have extremely different values. Thiel has said that the world would be a better place if women never got the right to vote because, on average, women vote for policies that he thinks are bad. This indicates that Thiel values particular policy action more than providing franchise to people. That's... pretty bad in my opinion.
I don't believe that Thiel wants harm to come to people as a primary goal. But I do believe that he and I have extremely different values. Thiel has said that the world would be a better place if women never got the right to vote because, on average, women vote for policies that he thinks are bad. This indicates that Thiel values particular policy action more than providing franchise to people. That's... pretty bad in my opinion.
It's a fantastic interview question if your goal is to hire irritating smart-arses.
Or if your goal is to not hire irritating smart-arses. It seems a way to filter candidates on ideology. You can't get away with asking if people believe in god or climate change or affirmative action or abortion rights. But a question like this prompts people to bring up any strongly held beliefs on sensitive topics themselves (sensitive topics are where you find your views are contrarian). Once the topic is raised, your unconscious biases do the filtering even if you are not doing it deliberately 'to ensure a good team fit'.
This is one of the worst interview questions. It's up there with "which President did you vote for?" or "which phone brand are you using?".
"Which phone brand are you using?" Why is this one of the worst questions? It doesn't provide information that seems significant to most jobs, but I wouldn't characterize as even in the same ballpark as "Which President did you vote for?" that I agree would be one of the worst.
I suppose for people like Thiel it is a good question because he's an entrepreneur/VC. Looking for opinions that no one holds but may present an investment opportunity is what he's looking for.
If I gave a real answer to that question, I'd get thrown out of the room ;-).
I remember reading about someone wanting to hire a mechanical engineer. Candidate came in, was given a blank sheet of paper and a pen, and 60 seconds to draw a picture of a working bicycle. Candidate drew a good picture, was hired on the spot, has been with the company or project or whatever it was ever since, 20+ years now.
Maybe someone else here remembers who or where that was. I came across the story fairly recently and the interview question was the part that stayed with me.
I remember reading about someone wanting to hire a mechanical engineer. Candidate came in, was given a blank sheet of paper and a pen, and 60 seconds to draw a picture of a working bicycle. Candidate drew a good picture, was hired on the spot, has been with the company or project or whatever it was ever since, 20+ years now.
Maybe someone else here remembers who or where that was. I came across the story fairly recently and the interview question was the part that stayed with me.
"S" = seat. "I" = pedals and crank. "=" for the chain and that part of the frame. "O" for the crank and rear wheel sprockets. "o" for the front axle. "X" for the stem for steering, in this case with upright handlebars. Standard diamond frame, and of course, two tires.
_
S____\
.-./ \ /X.-.
/ /\ \I/ /\ \
( O==)==O ( o )
\ / I \ /
`-’ `-’
A basciicle!
Not quite ASCII. I cheated and used "’" ('RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK' (U+2019)) because the ASCII "'" shows a vertical quotation mark, and I wanted a more curved one to make the wheel look right ... err, not as wrong. :)
[deleted]
That reminds me of a Wired article from 5 or 6 years ago:
https://www.wired.com/2016/04/can-draw-bikes-memory-definite...
https://www.wired.com/2016/04/can-draw-bikes-memory-definite...
Nice question, but it reminds me of a flawed question that appeared on one of my kid's high school science quizzes. It should have been easy, here it is"
True or False, turning off the radio in the car gives you better gas mileage.
Obviously, the energy for the radio comes from somewhere so True. However, my daughter who didn't drive at the time thought that car batteries where like ordinary batteries around the house and where simply replaced when the big things ran down. When I grew up, cars were far from reliable and it was pretty common to carry jumper cables so even kids just kind of knew that auto batteries where rechargeable and that the car contained a generator (alternator).
Drawing a bike would be easy for me. I've owned numerous bikes and even taken them down to bare frames to maintain them, but I'm not educated to be a mechanical engineer at all.
True or False, turning off the radio in the car gives you better gas mileage.
Obviously, the energy for the radio comes from somewhere so True. However, my daughter who didn't drive at the time thought that car batteries where like ordinary batteries around the house and where simply replaced when the big things ran down. When I grew up, cars were far from reliable and it was pretty common to carry jumper cables so even kids just kind of knew that auto batteries where rechargeable and that the car contained a generator (alternator).
Drawing a bike would be easy for me. I've owned numerous bikes and even taken them down to bare frames to maintain them, but I'm not educated to be a mechanical engineer at all.
Ah, but what if the radio makes you a calmer driver since you're less bored on your commute, and so the change in behavior it leads to gives you better milage? You are part of this machine too.
Different roles, different type of questions. Asking questions like these can make sense if you're trying to find a certain type of candidate - like a CEO. I wouldn't ask a rank-and-file engineer for questions which are way outside their space and domain, just like I wouldn't ask a CEO for questions which are more suited for workers that deal in well-defined and finite spaces.
Stating virtually anything in the form of “but the truth is X” or “I know X to be true” is very arrogant IMO.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
That said I do realize his goal is to find people thinking outside the box and not afraid to speak their mind, it’s just that he could have phrased it better.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
That said I do realize his goal is to find people thinking outside the box and not afraid to speak their mind, it’s just that he could have phrased it better.
Then all of the greatest scientists in human history were arrogant (by your judgement). So what?
Progress and truth are much, much more important than fitting in and pleasing others’ sense of propriety.
Progress and truth are much, much more important than fitting in and pleasing others’ sense of propriety.
No reasonable scientist has ever claimed that their theory is 100% correct and that it is an objective truth.
Scientific theories are merely our best approximations of how the world works.
Usually it is the anti-scientific drivel that is full of assertions and absolute statements, which is also what makes it so popular, especially among the less educated crowd.
I agree that making progress is of utmost importance, but the concept of truth is much more nuanced and, imo, difficult to define in objective terms.
Scientific theories are merely our best approximations of how the world works.
Usually it is the anti-scientific drivel that is full of assertions and absolute statements, which is also what makes it so popular, especially among the less educated crowd.
I agree that making progress is of utmost importance, but the concept of truth is much more nuanced and, imo, difficult to define in objective terms.
"I have reasons to believe X" (1) vs "I know the truth X" (2).
1 sounds less arrogant than 2 IMHO and is what I would expect a scientific minded person to say. That makes it way simpler to discuss the actual reasons to believe X, without necessarily going against the individual who believes X.
1 sounds less arrogant than 2 IMHO and is what I would expect a scientific minded person to say. That makes it way simpler to discuss the actual reasons to believe X, without necessarily going against the individual who believes X.
That's not what the parent comment was saying - they're communicating that presuming to know the truth with complete confidence is arrogant, not that actual knowledge of truth (i.e. expertise) is arrogant.
My take:
Most people think that a job interview is about a company evaluating a potential hire when it really goes both ways and the company is also being evaluated.
To the interviewer: Now, how would you answer that same question?
Most people think that a job interview is about a company evaluating a potential hire when it really goes both ways and the company is also being evaluated.
To the interviewer: Now, how would you answer that same question?
Why is this the best interview question?
Maybe it's the best interview question for Thiel, since he was / is looking for contrarians? [0]
But is it the best interview question for other organizations?
Love or hate Elon - but I prefer what he said... basically:
"Describe a few of the hardest problems you solved & exactly how you solved them."
-----
[0] He seems to be a contrarian himself - I mean he was voting and supporting Trump... very 'courageous' indeed and such a smart move.
Maybe it's the best interview question for Thiel, since he was / is looking for contrarians? [0]
But is it the best interview question for other organizations?
Love or hate Elon - but I prefer what he said... basically:
"Describe a few of the hardest problems you solved & exactly how you solved them."
-----
[0] He seems to be a contrarian himself - I mean he was voting and supporting Trump... very 'courageous' indeed and such a smart move.
Being the "the single best interview question" lies on what you want to extract from the interviewer. TBH, there's no single best interview question to ask (at least I didn't find one yet) but for sure there's a couple of questions that may help you to understand people's view on the world and maybe that could reflect on the way people act regarding their work.
In this particular case what I find interesting is how this question can lead to a conversation to what people find truth and how they relate that with facts and questions.
A good follow up question to whatever answer is to why you think that way and lead the conversation from there.
As for Theil's answer I agree that is not the best answer since I find it hard to believe that few people will agree with him.
In this particular case what I find interesting is how this question can lead to a conversation to what people find truth and how they relate that with facts and questions.
A good follow up question to whatever answer is to why you think that way and lead the conversation from there.
As for Theil's answer I agree that is not the best answer since I find it hard to believe that few people will agree with him.
To be honest I've tended to think of past or current statements, but I guess the trick is thinking about future statements which are harder to predict and get people to agree on.
What about this answer: working at a company like Palantir means you're morally compromised - a mercenary who will trade their skills to objectively make the world a worse place by contributing to a system that exploits and oppressed people. Founding a company like Palantir makes you an even more morally compromised, to the point where people taking advice about interviewing from you is farcical.
[deleted]
Ran it past a few friends and they uncovered that it might be a better question to ask your interviewer.
Alternative title: "How to fill your organization with mostly undeservedly arrogant contrarians".
Ahahah. You're being a bit hard :)
"If every one of India’s hundreds of millions of households were to live the way Americans already do— using only today’s tools— the result would be environmentally catastrophic. Spreading old ways to create wealth around the world will result in devastation, not riches. In a world of scarce resources, globalization without new technology is unsustainable."
But this answer is completely in line with the conventional wisdom. It is not contrarian or something that "very few people agree with you on".
His reaction to it may be contrarian, but arguably not in a good way: ity is noteworthy that Mr Thiel's action plan, based on whatever beliefs that he holds, is to funnel money into the anti-democratic political right wing: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/technology/republican-tru...