chess players...

[Ricky]

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:17:42 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

mandag den 10. april 2023 kl. 21.57.50 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 4/10/2023 3:39 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
mandag den 10. april 2023 kl. 21.30.03 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 4/10/2023 3:20 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
mandag den 10. april 2023 kl. 20.22.41 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 4/10/2023 1:48 PM, RichD wrote:
If an interview of job applicant reveals he\'s a
high rated chess player - or maybe it\'s on his
resume - is that a point in his favor? Or do you
regard it as an irrelevant hobby?

--
Rich
Annoying, the credential is dubiously related but it\'s one more thing
you have to verify anyway to make sure you\'re not hiring a pathological
liar.

See e.g. Google and James Damore who claimed the same but just made it
up, if only they\'d done due diligence on that guy it would\'ve saved them
quite a bit of headache.

yeh, people who don\'t know how to shut up and follow the religion and
think they should actually research and answer honestly on such matters
of religion is nothing but trouble
He was a problem employee who lied on his resume before all of that, not
really worth making a martyr of (though no doubt he thinks himself as
such.)

when someone asks questions that doesn\'t fit the ideology and exposes hypocrisy
A quick smear campaign is in order to discourage anyone else from doing such silly things
Far as I can recall nobody at Google liked him enough to hand in their
resignation over it, like \"This injustice will not stand, either he
stays or I go too.\"
afair several threatened to and said such silly things like they hadn\'t been able to work for days because of anger

It tells something when an autist engineer writes a memo and instead of explaining why and how he\'s wrong
they oust him

In the article I read, they did explain why they fired him. It directly related to his actions. What more do you expect? Do you think they should engage in a debate?

You can fire someone for not working effectively, or negatively impacting the work environment (which is what was said to be the reason for his dismissal). You are not allowed to fire someone for their personal views. A discussion of the details of what he said would have put the focus on his views, rather than the impact those views had on the workplace.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 4/10/2023 5:39 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 4/10/2023 2:04 PM, bitrex wrote:
Saying you\'re 6\' tall on your online dating profile when you\'re really
only 5\'11\" and a quarter, or saying you helped sell 20k units last
year on a resume when the grand total was actually only 19,487, are
the kind of fibs that make the world go \'round.

Lying about credentials, however, is very serious business and I\'d
never hire anyone who \"bluffed\" about a credential as straightforward
to verify as chess rankings, even though it\'s \"only\" chess rankings
and not something directly related to the job description doesn\'t make
it any better.

Maybe worse, at least lying about an employment-related credential is
in some sense understandable as goal oriented, but what kind of
asshole would lie about their chess ranking when it\'s not even required?

So you have to check to ensure you\'re not dealing with that kind of
asshole, even if you figure it\'s a small chance you are.

Underlying all that is the assumption that the interviewer actually *cared*
about the claim(s) being made.

A friend\'s son creates crossword puzzles (yeah, I guess *someone* has to
do it).  He (friend) commented about how pleased his son was to have
made his
first *symmetric* crossword (I hadn\'t realized that this is actually a
goal -- until he put a name on it).  If he came in for an interview and
I chatted with him, I\'d wonder why he had so much time on his hands to
devote to designing *a* puzzle (and how many of these he might be able to
do in a year)-- that one could likely write a piece of code to do faster
and more repeatably!

I was an Eagle scout.  I\'ve never disclosed that on a job application or
resume; OTOH, when applying to colleges, there\'s not much that a teenager
can claim to have \"done\" -- so, appropriate in that context.

I was a cub scout! I got the Webelos badge and came in third in the
Pinewood Derby and everything. But probably not really relevant, either..

Show me a system/circuit/code-fragment that you\'ve created and let me
\"quiz\" you on that; if you can\'t answer *ALL* of my questions, then I\'m
going to have serious doubts as to your grasp of The Truth.

[I had an applicant come in and present a large piece of code as his own.
I recognized the product.  And, personally knew the REAL developer.
Without looking up from reviewing the listing (cuz my facial expression
would betray me), I asked \"What part of this did Ernesto di Plunoberry
(fictitious name intended to draw attention the the oddness of the
actual author\'s name) write?\"    *Silence* ]

Rule of thumb is that people who outright lie about trivial things will
do the same about major things. Again, I\'m not talking about stretching
the truth like claiming 20k sales when it was really only 19k in the way
just about everyone does, but genuine bullshitting.

Let \"Personnel\" sort out the verifiable claims (education, age, past
work history, etc.) and ignore the rest -- except as trivia.

Ya but YOU tend to be the fall guy when they turn out to be a bad apple;
you made the call to send their shit to personnel in the first place.
Everyone knows \"Personnel\" is barely conscious to begin with, it\'s not
going to fall on their heads

 

[Don Y]

On 4/11/2023 8:06 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 4/10/2023 5:39 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/10/2023 2:04 PM, bitrex wrote:
Saying you\'re 6\' tall on your online dating profile when you\'re really only
5\'11\" and a quarter, or saying you helped sell 20k units last year on a
resume when the grand total was actually only 19,487, are the kind of fibs
that make the world go \'round.

Lying about credentials, however, is very serious business and I\'d never
hire anyone who \"bluffed\" about a credential as straightforward to verify as
chess rankings, even though it\'s \"only\" chess rankings and not something
directly related to the job description doesn\'t make it any better.

Maybe worse, at least lying about an employment-related credential is in
some sense understandable as goal oriented, but what kind of asshole would
lie about their chess ranking when it\'s not even required?

So you have to check to ensure you\'re not dealing with that kind of asshole,
even if you figure it\'s a small chance you are.

Underlying all that is the assumption that the interviewer actually *cared*
about the claim(s) being made.

A friend\'s son creates crossword puzzles (yeah, I guess *someone* has to
do it).  He (friend) commented about how pleased his son was to have made his
first *symmetric* crossword (I hadn\'t realized that this is actually a
goal -- until he put a name on it).  If he came in for an interview and
I chatted with him, I\'d wonder why he had so much time on his hands to
devote to designing *a* puzzle (and how many of these he might be able to
do in a year)-- that one could likely write a piece of code to do faster
and more repeatably!

I was an Eagle scout.  I\'ve never disclosed that on a job application or
resume; OTOH, when applying to colleges, there\'s not much that a teenager
can claim to have \"done\" -- so, appropriate in that context.

I was a cub scout! I got the Webelos badge and came in third in the Pinewood
Derby and everything. But probably not really relevant, either..

For young people -- with few opportunities to *do* anything of
substance -- these sorts of activities indicate that you can \"belong\"
as well as \"persevere\".

\"Single digit\" percentages (2-5%) of \"Scouts\" stick with it long
enough to earn an Eagle. As it\'s not just awarded based on longevity,
it means they put in the effort to reach that goal. *A* goal.

Show me a system/circuit/code-fragment that you\'ve created and let me
\"quiz\" you on that; if you can\'t answer *ALL* of my questions, then I\'m
going to have serious doubts as to your grasp of The Truth.

[I had an applicant come in and present a large piece of code as his own.
I recognized the product.  And, personally knew the REAL developer.
Without looking up from reviewing the listing (cuz my facial expression
would betray me), I asked \"What part of this did Ernesto di Plunoberry
(fictitious name intended to draw attention the the oddness of the
actual author\'s name) write?\"    *Silence* ]

Rule of thumb is that people who outright lie about trivial things will do the
same about major things. Again, I\'m not talking about stretching the truth like
claiming 20k sales when it was really only 19k in the way just about everyone
does, but genuine bullshitting.

Another rule of thumb is that Manglement will ignore any facts that
interfere with their intended goal (esp on the short term). The
applicant in question was hired -- despite my comments re: his
\"misrepresentation\" as well as personally contacting folks at his
previous employer (to ask the sorts of questions that the law prevents
Personnel folks from asking/disclosing)

Let \"Personnel\" sort out the verifiable claims (education, age, past
work history, etc.) and ignore the rest -- except as trivia.

Ya but YOU tend to be the fall guy when they turn out to be a bad apple; you
made the call to send their shit to personnel in the first place. Everyone
knows \"Personnel\" is barely conscious to begin with, it\'s not going to fall on
their heads

It\'s usually the other way around; you don\'t see applications until
Personnel has at least done a preliminary vetting, based on your
advertised criteria (\"No, I\'m not keen on talking to an accountant
who learned how to code in his spare time...\")

[I know of at least one Personnel Director who had falsified *her*
credentials! Ooops!]

 

[bitrex]

On 4/11/2023 11:49 AM, Don Y wrote:

Rule of thumb is that people who outright lie about trivial things
will do the same about major things. Again, I\'m not talking about
stretching the truth like claiming 20k sales when it was really only
19k in the way just about everyone does, but genuine bullshitting.

Another rule of thumb is that Manglement will ignore any facts that
interfere with their intended goal (esp on the short term).  The
applicant in question was hired -- despite my comments re: his
\"misrepresentation\" as well as personally contacting folks at his
previous employer (to ask the sorts of questions that the law prevents
Personnel folks from asking/disclosing)

Let \"Personnel\" sort out the verifiable claims (education, age, past
work history, etc.) and ignore the rest -- except as trivia.

Ya but YOU tend to be the fall guy when they turn out to be a bad
apple; you made the call to send their shit to personnel in the first
place. Everyone knows \"Personnel\" is barely conscious to begin with,
it\'s not going to fall on their heads

It\'s usually the other way around; you don\'t see applications until
Personnel has at least done a preliminary vetting, based on your
advertised criteria (\"No, I\'m not keen on talking to an accountant
who learned how to code in his spare time...\")

Either way it goes I don\'t expect they figure it\'s their job to check
self-reported chess rankings or whether someone actually has a General
amateur radio license when they claim to be Amateur Extra. But it\'s been
a long time since I\'ve worked for an organization big enough to have a
big \"Personnel Department\" with their own offices somewhere in a big
complex.

[I know of at least one Personnel Director who had falsified *her*
credentials!  Ooops!]

It doesn\'t surprise me that even Google missed that James Damore wasn\'t
ranked nearly as well in chess as he claimed to be. It surprises me
slightly more that they didn\'t pick up that he lied about his education,
also, claiming to have completed a PhD when he was only a candidate.

Contrary to his insistence that the G is overrun with woke-ism I expect
being confident & white helped him slide by well enough.

I don\'t know if he had any diagnosable condition other than being a wing
nut with odd ideas about evolutionary psychology. But I do know people
with a sociopath inclination will begin testing the waters to see what
they can get over on you and/or your organization very early on.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/11/2023 10:37 AM, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:17:42 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
mandag den 10. april 2023 kl. 21.57.50 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 4/10/2023 3:39 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
mandag den 10. april 2023 kl. 21.30.03 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 4/10/2023 3:20 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
mandag den 10. april 2023 kl. 20.22.41 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 4/10/2023 1:48 PM, RichD wrote:
If an interview of job applicant reveals he\'s a
high rated chess player - or maybe it\'s on his
resume - is that a point in his favor? Or do you
regard it as an irrelevant hobby?

--
Rich
Annoying, the credential is dubiously related but it\'s one more thing
you have to verify anyway to make sure you\'re not hiring a pathological
liar.

See e.g. Google and James Damore who claimed the same but just made it
up, if only they\'d done due diligence on that guy it would\'ve saved them
quite a bit of headache.

yeh, people who don\'t know how to shut up and follow the religion and
think they should actually research and answer honestly on such matters
of religion is nothing but trouble
He was a problem employee who lied on his resume before all of that, not
really worth making a martyr of (though no doubt he thinks himself as
such.)

when someone asks questions that doesn\'t fit the ideology and exposes hypocrisy
A quick smear campaign is in order to discourage anyone else from doing such silly things
Far as I can recall nobody at Google liked him enough to hand in their
resignation over it, like \"This injustice will not stand, either he
stays or I go too.\"
afair several threatened to and said such silly things like they hadn\'t been able to work for days because of anger

It tells something when an autist engineer writes a memo and instead of explaining why and how he\'s wrong
they oust him

In the article I read, they did explain why they fired him. It directly related to his actions. What more do you expect? Do you think they should engage in a debate?

You can fire someone for not working effectively, or negatively impacting the work environment (which is what was said to be the reason for his dismissal). You are not allowed to fire someone for their personal views. A discussion of the details of what he said would have put the focus on his views, rather than the impact those views had on the workplace.

If he\'d stayed on-topic in the realm of vaguely relevant things it might
have been OK.

But he didn\'t, his writings devolved into a cranky rant where it was
pretty clear he just didn\'t like women who work in tech very much;
massively overly-generalized claims like “Women don’t get promoted
because women don’t seek status like men do” (lol!) and “Women tend to
be more neurotic than men\", and his own personal theories of the origin
of ideological differences between conservatives and the libs (no points
for guessing which ideology he figures is superior.)

that is to say he was a crank who likely loves attention more than anything:

<https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16127968/fired-google-engineer-compares-high-paid-tech-job-to-soviet-forced-labor>

 

[Don Y]

On 4/11/2023 9:07 AM, bitrex wrote:

Let \"Personnel\" sort out the verifiable claims (education, age, past
work history, etc.) and ignore the rest -- except as trivia.

Ya but YOU tend to be the fall guy when they turn out to be a bad apple; you
made the call to send their shit to personnel in the first place. Everyone
knows \"Personnel\" is barely conscious to begin with, it\'s not going to fall
on their heads

It\'s usually the other way around; you don\'t see applications until
Personnel has at least done a preliminary vetting, based on your
advertised criteria (\"No, I\'m not keen on talking to an accountant
who learned how to code in his spare time...\")

Either way it goes I don\'t expect they figure it\'s their job to check
self-reported chess rankings or whether someone actually has a General amateur
radio license when they claim to be Amateur Extra.

No. They will typically only verify the aspects of the CV/application that
you\'ve specified as \"job requirements\". I.e., don\'t expect to lie about
your past employer, job title there, etc.

Nowadays, this is often contracted out to a firm that specializes in
this sort of activity. For a few hundred dollars, they can get a
\"report\" on your claims -- as well as other \"pertinent details\"
(e.g., arrest record, etc.)

My BinL (personnel) routinely runs these checks before he gets anyone
in the organization looking at your application.

But it\'s been a long time
since I\'ve worked for an organization big enough to have a big \"Personnel
Department\" with their own offices somewhere in a big complex.

[I know of at least one Personnel Director who had falsified *her*
credentials!  Ooops!]

It doesn\'t surprise me that even Google missed that James Damore wasn\'t ranked
nearly as well in chess as he claimed to be. It surprises me slightly more that
they didn\'t pick up that he lied about his education, also, claiming to have
completed a PhD when he was only a candidate.

The chess claim is just \"noise\" to a potential employer. Who would care
if you claimed to have the world\'s largest collection of cupie dolls?
Or, a vintage automobile?

Ideally, you would want to bring up a topic to which the interviewer could
relate (e.g., a common hobby/interest). But, then would have to be sure there
was some substance to your claim!

Contrary to his insistence that the G is overrun with woke-ism I expect being
confident & white helped him slide by well enough.

I don\'t know if he had any diagnosable condition other than being a wing nut
with odd ideas about evolutionary psychology. But I do know people with a
sociopath inclination will begin testing the waters to see what they can get
over on you and/or your organization very early on.

*Everyone* has some degree of \"oddness\". The questions are: does it interfere
in *their* life *or* their ability to perform the duties required in the
environment available.

I\'ve a friend/colleague who just can\'t deal with paperwork. You\'ll wait
forever for him to draw up a *draft* copy of a schematic. But, he\'s an
excellent designer. So, you can choose to bear the cost of having someone
(paid considerably less!) take his \"napkin notes\" and make them look
pretty (he\'ll be happy to REVIEW a schematic that you\'ve drawn... just not
willing to do so, himself!)

I am notoriously averse to mornings. So, any activity that requires me
to be \"in attendance\" (physically or virtually) in those hours is just
not going to work. As I have control over my schedule, it can be
argued that I should be able to *meet* such demands; I simply choose
not to (reasoning that \"you\" can just as easily adapt to *my* schedule).

<shrug> I consider these two examples \"fudgeable\" -- if you want the
skills being offered, you adapt to the constraints being imposed.

Or, find a droid who\'s less competent but more malleable!

 

[Carl]

On 4/11/23 10:32, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:
On 4/10/23 13:48, RichD wrote:
If an interview of job applicant reveals he\'s a
high rated chess player - or maybe it\'s on his
resume - is that a point in his favor? Or do you
regard it as an irrelevant hobby?

--
Rich
If nothing else it shows they possess one set of intellectual skills
that may or may not help with electronics, and that they put in the work
and time to earn that rating. Hopefully that perseverance would
transfer to the job.

What makes you think this would \"transfer\" in any useful way? Clearly, chess is a hobby for such people, and so, is done out of pleasure seeking. Much more appropriate would be seeing electronics as a hobby on a resume. If you love your work, you are much more likely to be good at it. Enjoying something that is only loosely related is much less likely to indicate an applicant that will do well.

I said may or may not, but one example of a potential cross-over would
be the ability of a chess player to rapidly visualize and rank possible
moves, which sounds to me to be potentially pretty useful for laying out
circuits or routing a PCB. Mostly my take was having evidence of some
kind of intelligence and dedication, even in a field completely
unrelated to electronics, is probably better than having no information
at all.

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Martin Brown]

On 11/04/2023 22:40, Carl wrote:

On 4/11/23 10:32, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:
On 4/10/23 13:48, RichD wrote:
If an interview of job applicant reveals he\'s a
high rated chess player - or maybe it\'s on his
resume - is that a point in his favor? Or do you
regard it as an irrelevant hobby?

--
Rich
If nothing else it shows they possess one set of intellectual skills
that may or may not help with electronics, and that they put in the work
and time to earn that rating. Hopefully that perseverance would
transfer to the job.

What makes you think this would \"transfer\" in any useful way?
Clearly, chess is a hobby for such people, and so, is done out of
pleasure seeking.  Much more appropriate would be seeing electronics
as a hobby on a resume.  If you love your work, you are much more
likely to be good at it.  Enjoying something that is only loosely
related is much less likely to indicate an applicant that will do well.


I said may or may not, but one example of a potential cross-over would
be the ability of a chess player to rapidly visualize and rank possible
moves, which sounds to me to be potentially pretty useful for laying out
circuits or routing a PCB.  Mostly my take was having evidence of some
kind of intelligence and dedication, even in a field completely
unrelated to electronics, is probably better than having no information
at all.

Back in the 1800\'s there was a fair amount of moral panic about students
playing chess and wasting away in their rooms and/or becoming violent. eg.

https://www.techdirt.com/2014/06/20/that-time-when-people-thought-playing-chess-would-make-you-violent/

https://medium.com/message/why-chess-will-destroy-your-mind-78ad1034521f

Original source SciAm 1859 July 2nd (scanned image):

<http://books.google.com/books?id=90hGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA9>

These days we think we know better but you only have to look at some of
the utterances about the internet/WWW/AI to see that it isn\'t true.

Moral panics about anything \"new\" or \"unfamiliar\" abound.


--
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 4/12/2023 1:27 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> Moral panics about anything \"new\" or \"unfamiliar\" abound.

Primarily from the \"older generations\" (afraid of change?).

I\'m always amazed at how eagerly (affordable!) 96 inch TVs,
increased cancer/heart-attack survival rates, etc. are
embraced. But, let someone come out of the closet (i.e.,
their \"preferences\" haven\'t changed... they\'re just being
OPEN about them) and folks are suddenly scared shitless.

\"Let\'s make it ILLEGAL to talk about, teach, or even publish
literature that acknowledges that REALITY!\" (as if that
will somehow CHANGE reality)

I suspect, if on the fateful Titanic voyage, they\'d just
refuse to look at the iceberg and that would make everything better.

Of course, this from the folks who feel the *need* to own
(and carry!) a personal weapon... (living in perpetual fear must
really suck!)