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

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:48:32 PM UTC-4, 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?

It would not be of much significance to me. I would be much more interested in the specifics of what he has done in his job and what he might have potential for in the future.

There are many ways to measure intelligence, which is what a high chess rating would show. However, this does not necessarily correlate with job skills. Few jobs are all technical. There are many personal traits that need to be considered as well.

--

Rick C.

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

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.

On 10/04/2023 18:48, 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?

How high a rating? If they are at GM+ then they may not need your job or
could be away for a fair proportion of the time playing at tournaments.

If you can test their ability it isn't a bad indicator of high pattern
matching intelligence, very good memory and having started at an early
age. It is a fair indicator of strong visuo-spatial abilities too.

Test them against a few progressively more difficult test positions
chosen from CT_Art if you want to separate the wheat from the chaff
(other sources of hard chess puzzles with correct answers are available).

https://www.chesshouse.com/products/ct-art-4-0-download

You have probably heard of Roger Penrose the physics Nobel laureate but
you may not have heard of his less famous chess prodigy brother Jonathan
(or their father who was also famous in his own right).

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-penrose-family-scientists-and-chess-players

So I guess in employment it depends a lot on how distracted by pursuit
of chess they are as to whether or not they are a good bet to employ.

--
Martin Brown

On 4/10/2023 3:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 18:48, 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?
>
> How high a rating? If they are at GM+ then they may not need your job or
> could be away for a fair proportion of the time playing at tournaments.

We're trying to convince RichD to not claim to be a "high rated chess
player" on his resume okay

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

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.)

On 4/10/2023 12:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> How high a rating? If they are at GM+ then they may not need your job or could
> be away for a fair proportion of the time playing at tournaments.

I'd wonder *why* they were looking for the sort of job being offered and why
their *past* job couldn't "hold them". I met a savant (arithmetic), once.
Aside from his *one* skill, he needed someone to hold his hand continuously to
get through the "complexities" of life (e.g., *bowling*!)

> If you can test their ability it isn't a bad indicator of high pattern matching
> intelligence, very good memory and having started at an early age. It is a fair
> indicator of strong visuo-spatial abilities too.

Again, see above. "Why are you applying for THIS job?"

> Test them against a few progressively more difficult test positions chosen from
> CT_Art if you want to separate the wheat from the chaff (other sources of hard
> chess puzzles with correct answers are available).
>
> https://www.chesshouse.com/products/ct-art-4-0-download
>
> You have probably heard of Roger Penrose the physics Nobel laureate but you may
> not have heard of his less famous chess prodigy brother Jonathan (or their
> father who was also famous in his own right).
>
> https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-penrose-family-scientists-and-chess-players
>
> So I guess in employment it depends a lot on how distracted by pursuit of chess
> they are as to whether or not they are a good bet to employ.

In reviewing job applicants, I've found "personality" often more of an
indicator than "apparent skillset".

I've encountered folks who are incredibly skilled (but, usually in a very
narrowly-focused domain) who had little to contribute to anything outside of
their area of expertise. And, little *interest* in doing so. This can lead
to their self-isolation on a team. Or, their desire to try to fit every
problem to their "hammer".

I've been more pleased with the applicants who show genuine *interest* in
problems/issues that are presented. Admittedly, it's hard to get a very
"deep" assessment of the problems you pose in such a short time; but, do
they ask the *right* sort of questions for the job? E.g., someone who
expresses awe at a product by inquiring as to it's SELLING PRICE is
probably not a good fit for an engineering position!

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

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.

--
Regards,
Carl

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."

Pretty sure somebody relevant has to actually like and respect you as a
person before anyone can run a "smear campaign", yeah? well, maybe
Google is just that woke.

On 4/10/2023 3:57 PM, bitrex wrote:
> 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."

I mean, I'd have handed in my resignation over it. But if Google hired
me I'd immediately resign anyway so I guess that doesn't count for much.

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

On 10/04/2023 20:13, bitrex wrote:
> On 4/10/2023 3:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 10/04/2023 18:48, 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?

I'd be more suspicious of someone who had no hobbies at all. If he has
an ELO rating in competition I don't see any harm in saying so.

>> How high a rating? If they are at GM+ then they may not need your job
>> or could be away for a fair proportion of the time playing at
>> tournaments.
>
> We're trying to convince RichD to not claim to be a "high rated chess
> player" on his resume okay

OK. It wasn't clear to me which way around it was.

I assumed he was interviewing an applicant who had made that claim.

I'd say it was a double edged sword - some interviewers in the
electronics business might also be highly rated chess players...
so he'd better not be bluffing.

--
Martin Brown

On 4/10/2023 4:17 PM, 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
>
>

A scenario where an autistic engineer tells his superiors "I've noticed
there's a lot of employees who probably shouldn't be here in this
company. Prove me wrong" and they reply "You're not wrong! You're fired.
Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention."

maybe isn't the type of humor an autistic engineer would "get" too good,
but a lot of other people would probably find it pretty funny.

On 4/10/2023 4:28 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 10/04/2023 20:13, bitrex wrote:
>> On 4/10/2023 3:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2023 18:48, 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?
>
> I'd be more suspicious of someone who had no hobbies at all. If he has
> an ELO rating in competition I don't see any harm in saying so.
>
>>> How high a rating? If they are at GM+ then they may not need your job
>>> or could be away for a fair proportion of the time playing at
>>> tournaments.
>>
>> We're trying to convince RichD to not claim to be a "high rated chess
>> player" on his resume okay
>
> OK. It wasn't clear to me which way around it was.
>
> I assumed he was interviewing an applicant who had made that claim.
>
> I'd say it was a double edged sword - some interviewers in the
> electronics business might also be highly rated chess players...
> so he'd better not be bluffing.
>

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.

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.

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* ]

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

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:48:27 -0700 (PDT), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> 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?

I'd ask him if he thinks the chess skill relates to the job. That
would be interesting.

Some chess champs are very weird.

On 10/04/2023 18:48, 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

"That must take up a lot of your time?"

--
Cheers
Clive

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

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

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>

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.

--

Rick C.

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

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!]

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