Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 183

by circletimessquare (#49800999) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

A leaders job is to lead the group to as good an outcome as possible (i.e. it is the task that the leader was chosen to do)

the guy who is focusing his effort on getting a good outcome for society has no time to maintain his leadership. so someone else leads

A leader who is only good at remaining the leader... he/she is a good Narcissist.

i agree. and? so what. yes, absolutely: leading societies is the work of truly gifted and screwed up people. demagogues. this is a problem about human nature, but that doesn't make the problem magically. the problem is baked into how we function as social groups, there is no avoiding it

you seem to live in this insulated ivory tower that doesn't know, understand, nor accept certain unfortunate but unavoidably true aspects of human behavior. your concept of an ideal leader will always, always, wind up being some guy who works for the actual leaders. the actual leaders are the guys who spend most of their tiem acquiring and maintaining their leadership. playing a game that you dislike, but who cares if you like it. the game is part of your reality. that you don't like it doesn't make it go away

you don't bother acknowledging that the game of jockeying for control and keeping it is the real subject called leadership, and the entire domain you call leadership is actually a separate sideshow that comes after and is subservient to the real topic at hand: the ugly ways leadership is acquired and maintained

welcome to reality. acknowledge it. then form your opinions

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 183

by circletimessquare (#49800933) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

that may be the status quo, but the status quo is a failed concept


Q. Other insights from the data you’ve gathered about Google employees?

A. One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless — no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation. Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.’s and test scores, but we don’t anymore, unless you’re just a few years out of school. We found that they don’t predict anything.

What’s interesting is the proportion of people without any college education at Google has increased over time as well. So we have teams where you have 14 percent of the team made up of people who’ve never gone to college.

Q. Can you elaborate a bit more on the lack of correlation?

A. After two or three years, your ability to perform at Google is completely unrelated to how you performed when you were in school, because the skills you required in college are very different. You’re also fundamentally a different person. You learn and grow, you think about things differently.

Another reason is that I think academic environments are artificial environments. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained, they’re conditioned to succeed in that environment. One of my own frustrations when I was in college and grad school is that you knew the professor was looking for a specific answer. You could figure that out, but it’s much more interesting to solve problems where there isn’t an obvious answer. You want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer.

this is about GPA, not SAT, but they take home is that scores on academic tests are shit, because the "academic environment is an artificial environment". it focuses on skills that don't really help in the job. colleges need to change what they value, because what they value does not adequately prepare people for life


Q. Other insights from the studies you’ve already done?

A. On the hiring side, we found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time. How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane? How many gas stations in Manhattan? A complete waste of time. They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.

Instead, what works well are structured behavioral interviews, where you have a consistent rubric for how you assess people, rather than having each interviewer just make stuff up.

Behavioral interviewing also works — where you’re not giving someone a hypothetical, but you’re starting with a question like, “Give me an example of a time when you solved an analytically difficult problem.” The interesting thing about the behavioral interview is that when you ask somebody to speak to their own experience, and you drill into that, you get two kinds of information. One is you get to see how they actually interacted in a real-world situation, and the valuable “meta” information you get about the candidate is a sense of what they consider to be difficult.

On the leadership side, we’ve found that leadership is a more ambiguous and amorphous set of characteristics than the work we did on the attributes of good management, which are more of a checklist and actionable.

We found that, for leaders, it’s important that people know you are consistent and fair in how you think about making decisions and that there’s an element of predictability. If a leader is consistent, people on their teams experience tremendous freedom, because then they know that within certain parameters, they can do whatever they want. If your manager is all over the place, you’re never going to know what you can do, and you’re going to experience it as very restrictive.


what has google concluded about best hiring practices?

the emphasis should be on behavioral analysis. to glean someone's social intelligence

case closed

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 183

by circletimessquare (#49800817) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

you've just condemned the society the person is in, not the person's intelligence or character. indeed, there are people of great intelligence stuck in shitty jobs the world over. only because their society is so shit there is no path for them to improve themselves, through no fault of their own. people of truly exceptional social intelligence then probably quit anyway and start a revolution

Comment: Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* (Score 1) 45

by drinkypoo (#49800587) Attached to: Emulator Now Runs x86 Apps On All Raspberry Pi Models

What the fuck ever happened to "program", "application", "software", or "code"?

It's never been unusual to call a program an application even in the Unix or PC world, but it's been standard to call programs "apps" in the Mac community since forever, because they have been known as "applications" in the official MacOS system parlance since forever - hence the file type flag of APPL and not PROG, SOFT, or CODE.

Comment: Re:Money class, breeder class (Score 1) 536

by Grishnakh (#49800021) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

That's just plain ridiculous. Countries with the highest quality of life still have people reproducing, just not in huge numbers. So instead of 3-8 kids per couple average, we have 0-2 kids, and end up with a bit less than replacement rate. The only reason populations are expanding is because of immigration.

Eliminate immigration for the most part, and greatly extend lifespans, and you'll still see a stable population.

Comment: Re:Money class, breeder class (Score 1) 536

by Grishnakh (#49799989) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

If everybody gets to live a very long time, then we run out of resources

That entirely depends on the birth and death rates. Eliminating aging won't keep you from dying when a bus hits you. And we've found over and over that when people live comfortable, middle-class lifestyles with a proper education, they generally don't want to have a ton of kids any more. Every western country (plus Japan) is experiencing ZPG right now except for immigration.

If we figure out how to curb over-population and only the really old live, then we run out of viable sperm and eggs in a few generations

You're assuming we won't figure out how to reproduce artificially. That's a really bad assumption. If we can figure out how to stop or reverse aging, you don't think we can figure out how to continue to reproduce with artificial means (or even how to rejuvenate the gonads)?

unless we figure out how to dodge the who reproduction via sperm and eggs thing

Lots of people are already doing that: IVF, frozen sperm and eggs, etc. If for some weird reason we can figure out how to reverse aging in every part of the body *except* the testes/ovaries, you don't think we'd just automatically freeze people's sperm and eggs when they're young?

One thing that could potentially change this entire equation would be extending the range in which humans can live, whether it be orbital habitats, terraformed planets or cozy lintel asteroids.

I don't see why those things couldn't be built. We're just too lazy to make them right now, since we'd rather fight wars with each other over religious idiocy and the like.

But even before any of that is doable, the population thing is a red-herring. Most likely, anti-aging treatments will be expensive, so will be confined to wealthier people, which mainly means westerners, and richer Asians. These people are *already* not having many kids. All the western nations would have to do is stop all immigration, which would immediately give them negative population growth (with current conditions), and then with much greater lifespans, they'll have zero population growth, or maybe slightly positive.

It's not like anti-aging treatments are going to make everyone suddenly want to emulate the Duggars.

Comment: Re: Exodus (Score 1) 536

by Grishnakh (#49799895) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

You obviously aren't understanding the science behind anti-aging. The whole idea is that your body stays youthful; all the mechanisms in it which repair things work optimally, all the time, instead of falling apart with age like they do now (go find some small kid and a middle aged person, cut them both the same way, and then see how they heal differently). Though teeth might need to be replaced with implants, but most westerners these days have artificial parts in their teeth starting at rather young ages, either fillings or crowns. I challenge you to find me a 40-year-old without some dental work. Anyway, there's no need for artificial hips when you've figured out how to make the body repair itself properly. This might require periodic application of some kind of drug, or permanently-installed nanites, who knows? But no, most likely the future does not involve a bunch of old people with mostly-artificial bodies.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 183

by circletimessquare (#49799657) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

where a leader takes society has no meaning

whether or not a leader obtains and retains leadership does

you are talking about subject matter that has nothing to do with the topic of being a good leader or not

what is the value of a guy with good ideas for society who has no power?

get the power. then we can talk. if you can't do that, you are not a good leader nor a bad leader. you're simply not a leader. you simply don't matter on the topic

stop injecting an unrelated judgment on an unrelated parameter into the subject at hand


Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 183

by circletimessquare (#49799325) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

There's plenty of socially intelligent people with shitty jobs. There's plenty of people with crap social skills who are very successful at their jobs.

if you're socially intelligent, you know you don't need to stay in a shitty job. therefore, your example is incoherent

likewise, show me someone who is not socially intelligent and successful, and i'll show you someone operating in the same domain who is socially intelligent and yet even more successful, due to being more socially intelligent

for example, programming is in demand so programmers can be very successful, even the ones with shitty social skills. but within that domain, those programmers who are also socially intelligent are yet even more successful

Comment: Re:in all fairness, (Score 2) 183

by Austerity Empowers (#49799279) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

The worst problem is when schools started demanding photo ID for SATS to "stop" this confusion, only to not realize that quite a few asian people have identical names too, particularly after they have been anglicized. How many Tommy Chen's have I known in my life? Well over a hundred. The only difference was SSN, which of course, isn't on most ID.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 183

by circletimessquare (#49799189) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

Of course bad decisions that degrade the performance of the group are failures of the leader.

absolutely wrong. failure of leadership is failing to achieve or failing to hold on to the position of leadership

if the entire society goes to shit, but you retain leadership, you're a successful leader

Just like a chemist who accomplishes nothing but retaining his job is not a successful chemist.

no. a chemist who makes a discovery is a successful chemist. whether or not his lab is clean has no bearing on his status as such. to say he has dirty beakers does not mean he has failed at chemistry. just like you saying a leader failed to do {X} or {Y}, which has no bearing on him actually obtaining or retaining leadership, somehow magically has any meaning. it doesn't. you're just projecting your agenda onto an outside domain, and expecting that to matter for some reason, when your agenda really has no meaning as to whether or not a leader succeeds or fails

again, you are applying judgments on parameters that have nothing to do with the actual success or failure of the job

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 2) 183

by circletimessquare (#49799009) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

yes, while the guy who does good on his SAT is usually also socially intelligent as well, as you say, my point is that the guy who does poorly on his SAT but is socially intelligent, will be more successful in life, and is more intelligent according to the most important measure, than the guy who has stellar SAT scores but can't persuade or impress for shit

there are people who think, for example, an amazing ability to manipulate complex topological shapes in your head means you're somehow a more intelligent person or will be a more successful person than a guy who can't do much math at all, but is charismatic

that's my point here

We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.