News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What Thomas Edison expected job candidates to know by jpdoctor on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:40PM (#5227290)
I'd add: Watching the reaction of a person when they don't have one or more factoids at their fingertips is also useful for measuring the temperament of people.

The fact that he torqued a candidate so badly that it resulted in a letter to the NYT tells you that Edison didn't miss too much by passing on that hire.

Re:What Thomas Edison expected job candidates to know by doktrin on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:47PM (#5227334)
I don't see why a candidates willingness to stand up for themselves would be a negative trait, per se. If anything, it reflects poorly on the interviewer.
Re:What Thomas Edison expected job candidates to know by jpdoctor on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:02PM (#5227426)
Because it is inevitable that an exec will be in a position where it is expected that (s)he knows something but does not.

There are many execs who will then react with a "willingness to stand up for themselves", and god knows that culture exists at some companies. Screening for people who have a different emotional response results in (imho) a higher-functioning team.

Re:What Thomas Edison expected job candidates to know by numbsafari on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:31PM (#5227591)
I think the mere fact that someone would feel the need to "stand up for themselves" in the face of a simple question says a lot about them.
Re:What Thomas Edison expected job candidates to know by doktrin on Friday February 15, 2013 @02:33PM (#5228015)
The reactions seem to be to the entire interview process, and not a single question. Thus, we're talking about the "whole package", wherein the interviewer's attitude and demeanor are probably more important than any individual question.