> Bad news is that most people are not good developers and they don't even know about it because really good developers are so few and concentrated in relatively few places. In effect, most developers will never have a chance to work with one.
Yeah and having an outstanding skill or performance is not important in an average company/organisation, and will most likely give you only trouble. Larger organisations are risk averse, optimised for stability and longevity. Not short term performance. It's not a sports team.
Your goal is to enable your business to make more money, that requires hiring enough competent people that can do the work that needs to be done, to make that money.
Sometimes that work is really not especially interesting, or challenging. Nobody is going to love it, or be passionate about it, and it really doesn't require a person to be more than average in terms of skill, because it's just not that technically difficult.
And that sometimes is the majority of all salaried work, so statistically speaking, that's probably also you and your company.
Why pretend to be a unicorn and only insist on hiring passionate self motivated people who will be a bad fit anyway, and be bored after two weeks.
The hiring process is not for stroking the egos of middle managers who want to feel special.
I am not pretending to be unicorn by keeping high hiring standards.
It is a reflection on our strategy. Our strategy is that, long term, is better to have smaller, tight knit community of highly intelligent, capable and motivated people than try to throw masses of lower paid employees at the problem.
We are fighting complexity and having large team of constantly rotating people that never seem to bear responsibility for their decisions is one of the worst things you can do.
I prefer to spend more time on hiring, find people I am satisfied with and then pay them well so that they are not looking to change their job in two years as most IT seems to be doing nowadays. Retention is a hugely underestimated success factor.
Highly intelligent, (technically) capable and motivated people are probably not in any way correlated with the amount of complexity you are needing to fight with. And if it is, it's most likely negative.
Lack of intelligence is probably not your problem, the computer genius who swoops in and saves the day only exists in movies. You are probably in a much bigger need of accountable management who actually structures the work and aligns the team by making decisions.
There are plenty of reliable, mature, productive people with great team work and communication skills, who will get rejected because they say that they are actually passionate about playing guitar, not programming, and because they can't solve esoteric programming problems on whiteboards.
Your hiring process is not optimised to further business goals, it's optimised for acting out the big bang theory in the workplace.
Yeah, I'm speaking in general terms of the software industry, and common hiring processes, which according to your comments you seem to fit into pretty well.
I don't mean to criticise you but rather suggest that the hiring process should focus less on intelligence and coding skills, and try to hire people that have intellect. That can pair judgement with intelligence. That can relate decisions to goals beyond their own personal preferences.
I have too many bad experiences with highly intelligent, but myopic and immature software developers who are left to "self organise" and just end up being lose cannons of raw intelligence, that does much more harm than good.
Software development, is more an organisational problem than a technical one.
The organisation itself is already so vastly complex that no human being can comprehend it, and that's why you have a hierarchy of information and specialisation of roles. Even if your system by some miracle has zero accidental complexity, it's still going to overwhelm even the most intelligent person, just by the amount of essential complexity. So you will need an organisation of hierarchy and/or specialisation to manage this. And the biggest determining factor for how successful you are, is this organisation and how it works as a whole, rather than any individuals superior capacity.
I just think it's a really bad idea to try to hire "extra smart" people to try to solve these issues, because it won't work.
I think you have some good understanding of parts of the problem but the ease with which you generalise is dangerous.
Getting from "I have too many bad experiences with highly intelligent, but myopic and immature software developers" to "I just think it's a really bad idea to try to hire 'extra smart' people (..) because it won't work" is pretty poor logic.
I think much better and productive statement would be "Hiring intelligent people is not enough to solve the problem."
It is much more productive because from there you can go to actually discussing what else is needed to make good use of highly intelligent people.
What I'm trying to say is: it's a bad idea to hire extra smart individual contributors as a solution to managing complexity, because nobody is smart enough. The cult of genius makes the workplace dysfunctional and inefficient.
That extra intelligence is mostly irrelevant, and sometimes negative.
Managing complexity is done with hierarchy, specialisation and careful organisation of work from accountable managers. You want this organisation to work well, and then you want to hire people who can do an acceptable job and function well within that organisation. And if you are still finding yourself in a chaos of unmanageable complexity, the organisation of the team is to blame.
The hierarchy, specialisation and organisation of the work is not done well enough, and must be fixed. You don't need more horsepower when the steering of your car has broken, that's just going to get you in the ditch faster.
It would make sense to just not allow men to swipe first at all, it was an obvious improvement when they only let the women start conversations. I think the issue is it will lower engagement.
Because of the biological asymmetry between the sexes. A man can have thousands of children, and women can only have a small amount. It's what drives natural selection and evolution of the species. Some part of the men are supposed to get rejected.
I know this will be hard to swallow for a lot:
No polygamy is not stable and that is why it is outlawed in a lot of countries. Consider that men physiologically have a drive to produce wealth and "grow" to attract and sustain a family. (Nations I hear want that.)
What do you think throughout history the men that could not find a match did? They joined wars, became vagabonds, thieves, joined piracy or similar and went to forcefully acquire wealth and/or women (and rape). Needless to say a peaceful nation does not want that.
Men are going to fight the rejection tooth and nail (a trait evolved in a similar fashion).
I tend to agree with you that nations are essentially trying to optimize for wealth under their jurisdiction, but I don't think that _necessarily_ tells you anything about how they'll treat polygyny.
Dating after the online part also sucks, where you pretend to be so busy that you can only meet once a week and only on weekdays, and you can never answer a message in under 24 hours. Don't really see how two people can start to like each other when it's so standoffish.
Who has every hour of their weekend booked? Who doesn't have two minutes to look at their phone in a whole day? It's such bullshit, this game is so exhausting and just zaps out any positive energy you get during a date.
Yeah it's just the way it is. And relationships, and marriage, is an economic union more than anything else, and the main goal is to gather enough cold hard economic value to provide for children, and each other.
> It's not like people are putting dollar values on their dating prospects, from what I've seen.
People (women) are putting dollar values on their dating prospects, from what I've seen, and I don't blame them, it is important. Sure it's not everything, but love is hardly a mystical force completely detached from economy.
> I do think that the problem with most surveys is that there will certainly be biases in self-reported answers.
Yeah and it's very typical with this question especially. You can't ask a woman what she values in a partner, because she will say whatever makes her look like a good person.
That's why so many girls list intelligence as an important thing in a man, and still the most intelligent guys get the least girls.
You need to look at how women actually choose their partners, not ask them how they would hypothetically choose. Look at the men that always have hot girlfriends and what they have in common, that's how you can make an empirical conclusion.
This is actually how you feed your confirmation bias, please be careful as a lot of the language you are using makes me worry about you.
There are many explanations for the phenomenon of dating, but your comment reads like a textbook example of someone looking to confirm beliefs.
Why couldn’t attractiveness simply be a cross product of money and physical activity level? In that case, hot people end up together due to economics and interests.
Yeah it makes perfect sense for a woman to maximise their time and resources to their fertile years, and not shift that over to older age.
Funny also how nobody is looking at the expense gap, if women are making the same money as men, then obviously they should share expenses 50/50 as well. How many couples actually do that?
Women are underrepresented in the top level of society, but always turn a blind eye to the fact that they are underrepresented in the bottom of society as well.
Women should get the same share of rewards as men, but not take any of the risks? How does that make any sense?
If women are taking place in the boardrooms, are they also going to increase their share in prisons? Among homeless? Premature death?
And self actualisation is having children anyway, so women are already at endgame. The reason why men work so hard with careers, is because it enables them to have children and start a family, not because it's just fun to play around with money and power.
The fertility thing is far worse than that. Modern society is actively teaching women that their value as a partner comes from things which they would normally select men for. Ambition, money, etc. So women are gaining things men don't really care for, while losing the things men do select for. On top, their higher socioeconomic status generally translates into a smaller dating pool, as they select equal or higher socioeconomic men. The surface of the bell curve only grows smaller as you go further.
And the answer to this? Trying to shame men into liking something else instead of being honest and admitting women are sabotaging themselves listening to the "work is life" mantra.
> So women are gaining things men don't really care for, while losing the things men do select for. On top, their higher socioeconomic status generally translates into a smaller dating pool, as they select equal or higher socioeconomic men.
Yeah it's as if it's been decided suddenly that men are attracted to highly educated high earning women, which really doesn't work. Men are attracted to the prospect of having children, which means youth and health, and there are very real practical matters that have limits to their flexibility.
> Courage, getting out there, skill, practice, being fun to be around, are skills people value much more than looks.
I don't think this is universally true, I bet it works in a lot of cases, but the opposite is often true as well. Try too hard and you look desperate. And looks will always win past a certain level, if you are johnny depp level attractive, you will always get the girls over some average looking guy who is working his ass off.
I bet the same goes for money as well past a certain level.
You can easily google it. Women rate looks as the 4th most important attribute in dating. as always, its an average, there are some vain people who only care about looks. They are by no means common or enough to make 95% of men undateable.
> And looks will always win past a certain level
pretty people who are single say the same thing about people with money. People with money say this about younger people. Turns out its never their fault, and its just something unattainble someone else has.
I guess blaming women is easier than working on yourself but that doesn't make it true.
I think you and those responding to you are saying many valid things, but there are ambiguities still. Does "dating" mean "late-stage worried-about-dying-alone parents-nagging-me dating"? Or does it mean "screw around and go where the wind takes me?". Is the context online or offline?
I think "looks win" accurately describes the way many women select men online for many of their dating years, but it can't continue forever. The "20% of the men get 80% of the women" works in short term dating, but it won't work out for more permanent relationships. From 100 men and 100 women, 20 men would pair with 20 women, and you have 80 men and 80 women left over. So they start to change preferences as they get older. And women know that a man can have a trait that's useless in the bedroom but very useful when raising a child.
It's also hard to say what "4th most important" means. Maybe looks are the 4th most important thing, given that the man is, at a minimum, in the top X%. But what's the formula? There are nonlinearities also, i.e. you can't always compensate. Having a million dollars and being 5.5 feet tall is better than having a billion dollars and being 4.5 feet tall, I'd predict. Something can be low-importance, but just about anything can be a dealbreaker.
I think you're correct in saying the gender inequity isn't so terrible at the end of the day. I predict if you surveyed both genders about whether they get what they really want out of online dating, they'd largely say no. Yes, the average woman has lots of options on Tinder, but that doesn't mean the average woman enjoys using Tinder much. Men think women have it great online because the women have what men want - lots of choice. But I have many female friends who are depressed about dating despite their long list of suitors. They struggle to build satisfying connections. We could ask who is to blame, but I'll just note at the end of the day, one side might be slightly happier than the other ... but only slightly! So frustrated people should keep that in mind.
Something about the way dating apps are set up lead to suboptimal outcomes, for both sexes.
As a point of evidence, I mostly used Tinder before meeting my current girlfriend on it, because Hinge and Bumble are unusable for me because they both require listing height, which results in me getting no matches from women on them. But, interestingly, my current girlfriend (and the girlfriend before her!) said that she wouldn't have matched with me if I had listed my height: in real life, however, it's not a concern, and she bemoans the fact that we spent so much time within a half mile of each other without meeting and she wasted so much time with people who weren't as compatible.
Women are inundated with options, so they have to filter them somehow: most women have similar preferences in men, and so once they filter their particular matches to those men who meet those easily filterable preferences, they end up with men that have already been heavily picked over and haven't left the market, either because they don't want a relationship or because they have other characteristics that result in them exiting relationships relatively soon after they start. So it ends up being a market for lemons (if a relationship is what the woman is looking for), leading to lots of mediocre or bad experiences.
Yeah, traditional Boolean search would be an improvement in some ways: “show me men taller than 6, or programmers of any height” (heh), but that’s either too overwhelming for users, or promotes spam or scraping or stalking or something. But maybe more choice isn’t the answer. Or maybe if you gave people the flexibility, they would be more cognizant of all the things they’re missing out on, and of the difficulty of getting it right, and take a less targeted approach with less “overfitting”. But the current system of independent “AND” cutoffs is what people get forced into. And an algorithm is a good alternative, but people don’t trust the algorithms much.
I'm pretty sure that if you somehow gave people an accurate filter for "loving partner who is looking for a long-term monogamous relationship underpinned by mutual care and affection," it'd instantly become the most popular one. But that's impossible to verify without weeks or months of dating. And there really isn't a good proxy for it, and if there were, it'd be quickly gamed.
I do suspect you could mitigate the market-for-lemons/selection effect by allowing filters on number of likes/matches and duration of time spent on the app: if someone has been on an OLD app for years consistently getting dozens of likes per day, they probably aren't a likely candidate for a long term relationship. But that'd be much less popular, because few people are willing to focus on potential partners not many other people want.
> Does "dating" mean "late-stage worried-about-dying-alone parents-nagging-me dating"? Or does it mean "screw around and go where the wind takes me?". Is the context online or offline?
Screw around part, before the predisposed expected monogamy bit usually called boyfriend/girlfriend. Holds for both.
> I think "looks win" accurately describes the way many women select men online for many of their dating years
This cannot be true. Just algorithmically, they have a rating for you, so women cannot pick men outside their rating regardless of their preferences. (I don't agree it would hold if they could pick any man, but its a moot question because they simply can't)
> The "20% of the men get 80% of the women" works in short term dating,
It doesn't. That fact comes from a horrible game of telephone, from a survey ran in a blog over a decade ago. The attempts to make an intellectual sounding argument for redpilling started early with comments about the Paretto principle. But thats not what the data showed at all.
> From 100 men and 100 women, 20 men would pair with 20 women, and you have 80 men and 80 women left over.
In the uk less than 50% of people are single in their 20s which is the heaviest user base of online dating sites.
> And women know that a man can have a trait that's useless in the bedroom but very useful when raising a child.
The idea that women go on sexual rampages after tall chiselled bodied men in their 20 and find a chubby bald rich 40 year old to settle after they are done is unsupported by data, research and anything outside of 4chan greentext stories. Which is where the idea started and should have died.
> It's also hard to say what "4th most important" means.
Women are asked to name what is important in a relationship, what is a dealbreaker, etc And looks hardly come first. Funnily enough in men appearance is quite an important metric early but goes down with time. Women usually say "stable income" as one of the most important things, many times above wealth (specially inherited many women prefer a smaller stable income over a one time larger paycheck).
> but just about anything can be a dealbreaker.
Sure, but thats on the extremes. Most humans fall in a bell curve, and 80% of them are not being tossed away over some perceived lack of top percentagedness.
> I think you're correct in saying the gender inequity isn't so terrible at the end of the day.
And at the start of the day.
> I predict if you surveyed both genders about whether they get what they really want out of online dating, they'd largely say no.
at the end of the day, its a company, they are there to make money not make you happy. Their product is access to women, their business model exploiting men loneliness.
> that doesn't mean the average woman enjoys using Tinder much.
They don't, which is why there are few women and why most feautures are designed either to make money or to retain women and nothing else. Those are the two metrics tinder checks.
> Women rate looks as the 4th most important attribute in dating.
You can't ask women this, see instead who the men are that get the most girls, there's your answer. Actions speak louder than words, and women are infamous for their cognitive dissonance in the field of mating.
> pretty people who are single say the same thing about people with money. People with money say this about younger people. Turns out its never their fault, and its just something unattainble someone else has.
And the young, pretty and rich people don't say anything, because they do in fact get first choice.
Yeah and having an outstanding skill or performance is not important in an average company/organisation, and will most likely give you only trouble. Larger organisations are risk averse, optimised for stability and longevity. Not short term performance. It's not a sports team.