|
Next time try Jungle Curry. Heat level of that one will be Pa-Nang ++++++++++++
Zen and the art of software maintenance : rm -rf *
Maths is like love : a simple idea but it can get complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, the content of Fast Company essays leave me slightly nauseous, but, scattered among the bits of this one: [^] ... I am reminded of some real-world experiences I had back in the daze when I was more than just another cubicle-hamster in silicon valley.Quote: When it comes to nailing an interview, your personality may play a larger role than you think. According to a recent study conducted by TopInterview and Resume-Library, 70% of employers consider a candidate’s personality to be among the top three factors in deciding whether to extend a job offer. It’s substantially more important than education (18%) or appearance (7%).
So, what personality traits will make or break your chances of landing the job? Employers reported that “overconfidence” was the most offensive. However, when asked which personality traits they find the most attractive, they rated “confidence” as the second-most important quality.
Seem a bit contradictory ?
Over-confidence/arrogance: yep, seen that one cost a middle-level program manager candidate their chance at a very lucrative position.
But, when someone has demonstrated, in their existing software achievements, very high skill levels ... how much does personality come into play ... once you rule out obvious deal-breakers like extreme behavior/conduct ?
Of course, I speak of a time before Agile, Scrum: perhaps those "ideologies/religions" make interviewing, today, more focused on personality. ability to interact ?
I hate that inevitable question about: "the time when you made a mistake ..." !
For marketers, I'd demand nothing less than perfect abilities to bs 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 4-Sep-19 21:13pm.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I hate that inevitable question about: "the time when you made a mistake ..." !
My standard reply to those questions is a variant of "Good Lord! Are we still asking that? Are the 1970s back? I knew I should have worn flares."
Sometimes I say 1960's and tie-dye; depends on the ages of the interviewers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I am just wondering, do you really say that? If so, how does it go over? I ask because what I have realized is that over the last two thousand year while technology has changed, our ability or lack thereof to communicate remains the same: very hard for some of us (myself included) to learn.
Thus it seems this is a timeless question. What I find interesting is: in my case, what has changed with regards to the question is not the question itself, but how I answer it. I have a far more loving answer today at 48 than twenty years ago.
-- modified 6-Sep-19 10:00am.
|
|
|
|
|
It's how you say it that counts. Stay affable, show humour, display interest in the work (if you're genuinely interested), and any doubts or fears (if you have them) -- bullsh1t might get you a job, but you'll be bloody miserable and probably be let go soon.
I always have a good laugh, during interviews, unless it turns out to be a contract that I really don't want.
If the people I will have to work with take themselves too seriously, and don't want to laugh, I don't want to work with them.
Never go into an interview allowing yourself to be nervous or scared. Thinking "OK, this should be fun!" allows you to open up more, and lets you give good answers immediately (rather than thinking "I wish I'd said that!" later)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Applying for this job.....
|
|
|
|
|
pass the exam get the job !!!
How to Hire a Programmer
Programmer Competency Matrix
...
Even in the best of circumstances, hiring human beings is hard. A job opportunity may not work out for reasons far beyond anyone's control. People are, as they say, complicated.
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to argue that it does play a big part.
Every project I have seen fail has generally been because someone with great technical skills and a high IQ believes that those skills also mean that they have good judgement.
That then translates into a lack of communication and even in the world of programming there are complexities which require input from outside of the machine and the single individual.
Technical skills are definitely no.1 on the list but I think communication and attitude are no. 2.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Hear! Hear!
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: Technical skills are definitely no.1 on the list but I think communication and attitude are no. 2.
I'd go as far as to switch those two.
An a**hole genius will wear your whole team down while a mediocre team player can be taught some additional skills and will eventually be an asset to the team.
I've been in a team with one such a**hole (although he was far from a genius, actually one of the worst programmers I've ever seen), but the whole project suffered from his personality and two people, me included, quit the company because of him (that was a 1/3th of the team!).
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I've been in a team with one such a**hole (although he was far from a genius, actually one of the worst programmers I've ever seen), but the whole project suffered from his personality and two people, me included, quit the company because of him (that was a 1/3th of the team!).
That, is a blatant lie. I have never, ever, worked with you.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I daresay personality matters a lot. A software team becomes efficient with team players. Much less so with sod-you-all-linus-thorwalds-genius-types.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
My experience is that it is much easier to teach a reasonably intelligent, but not super genius software developer, some of the technicalities of software development than it is to try to convince a technically genius jerk that their lack of decent communication could do with some looking at.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Skill can be learned, personality cannot. Give me an averagely skilled team player anytime over two skilled self absorbed developers.
Companies hire people, not skills.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Skill can be learned, personality cannot
I disagree, personality, I believe can also be learnt. The thing is very few people ever try, it is frustrating for sure but it can be done. Having said that while personality can be learned, nature does not change. So even if somebody manages to learn "personality" they would constantly be in conflict with their nature. Resulting in constant frustration.
|
|
|
|
|
Abbas A. Ali wrote: Having said that while personality can be learned, nature does not change. So even if somebody manages to learn "personality" they would constantly be in conflict with their nature. Resulting in constant frustration.
You explained it way better than me 
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Abbas A. Ali wrote: while personality can be learned, nature does not change
An interesting "innate determinism" view that does not take into consideration the roles people play in different contexts, and their ability to learn new behaviors.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
As I said earlier, I agree, new behaviors can be learnt. But they are contradicting to your nature, just the mere effort to act on them causes you to be at odds with your nature, the only way: you would have to suppress your nature for a long time (very difficult) or you run the risk of exploding.
I hope you don't think the people who feel better when they've learned and acted on this new behavior are the same with who don't. Just this feeling suggests this new-found behavior to be your nature which you never got in touch with before.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking as a former licensed psychotherapist, and Board Certified Member of the American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, I completely disagree with your view on "human nature," and the implication that cognitive dissonance and psychological discomfort are inevitable outcomes of learning new roles, and behaviors.
In my opinion short-term Cognitive Behavioral therapy (CBT) is often effective for helping people who have such "rigidly defended" points-of-view, and are often suffering depression, and frustration, at being stuck in old habits, and stereotyped patterns of behavior.
The great Kabir wrote: "Rahi gulzar to phool khilenge" ("where there is a garden, the flowers will come"); timelessly good advice ... but, sometimes we need some help to get started clearing the weeds.
cheers, Bill
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 6-Sep-19 8:00am.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: In my opinion short-term Cognitive Behavioral therapy (CBT) is often effective for helping people who have such "rigidly defended" points-of-view, and are often suffering depression, and frustration, at being stuck in old habits, and stereotyped patterns of behavior.
Could that be a smirk I'm detecting? 
BillWoodruff wrote: Speaking as a former licensed psychotherapist, and Board Certified Member of the American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama
You must know the field well. I know better than to cross paths with psychotherapist!
|
|
|
|
|
Salaam, Abbas, no smirk intended; i'm just an old whale blowing his spout as he is about to beach himself. i am certain you are a healthy, happy, and productive, young man !
the one thing i try and never underestimate is the ability of individuals to grow and change; at the same time, healthy people can maintain a set of core values that are consistent, and that they/we struggle to defend as we encounter the inevitable speed-bumps on the path of life: loss, disease, hardship, bad luck, family difficulties, etc.etc.
Gandhi-ji said: "I want the winds of all cultures to blow around my house, but, I don't want to be knocked over by any of them.
Remember what Kabir, and Gandhi said, and forget what bill said
cheers, bill
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Abbas, no smirk intended
I'm sure, I was just joking around. Perhaps I should've been clearer...
BillWoodruff wrote: the ability of individuals to grow and change
Sure, people do change (in their actions), their nature remains the same their instincts will always deceive their better judgement. Not that I'm taking away any credit from them, it takes great effort and care to do so. But my point was the very nature does not change, it is that voice in your head that keeps telling you to avoid doing the right thing. It is that compulsion in our heads that tentatively draws us towards our own undoing. And just like any other bad habbit, when you give in to it even once, you've gone back to your old ways.
BillWoodruff wrote: forget what bill said
No, give yourself a little credit.
|
|
|
|
|
People learn my imitation of others, rather than their taught learning.
In the article (covers more than cooking!) How do people learn to cook a poisonous plant safely? - BBC News[^] we see we are creatures of social habit. We often don't really learn, unless shown, so that we can 'copy'.
The hiring methods only need to work adequately, rather than well.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilipOakley wrote: People learn my imitation of others, rather than their taught learning.
If that is true for you, how do you account for the murder of the English language in this sentence PhilipOakley wrote: The hiring methods only need to work adequately, rather than well.
I hope you are joking !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: murder of the English language
As a Yorkshire man living in Scotland, I've yet to find a real English language... 
BillWoodruff wrote: hiring methods... joking !
Semi-seriously, as a Systems Engineer, the idea of the `hiring process` is to have 100% of folks be out of the top 5%, which isn't sustainable across the industry.
You get ~50% of folks out of the top ~40% (with the difference being those who don't get the employment . Performance is generally determined by the system that the component is in. It's only when the system has few components that it can be the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
