>Here's a secret: in the workplace, unlike school, attitude trumps raw ability. Every single time.

This is true... but only because the workplace is run by total fucking idiots.

I mean, I'm one of those people who always looks way better in the interview than I actually am. Excited, engaged, confident, interested in your problems... but seriously? you'd rather have me? some overconfident douchenozzle over someone smart? I know of several setups where I was interviewing against someone I know was better than me, where I won. I remember once, I got a guy who used to work for me an interview at a place where I had a full-time sysadmin job. (For much of my career, I've alternated between doing my own company, and working for other people.) the guy didn't get the job, apparently because he didn't interrupt my boss enough (who kept getting interruptions throughout the interview.)

The hilarious thing is that I'm a total mercenary; I'll leave your sorry ass for the first 20% raise I can get, while those people with a 'poor attitude' will stay at the same place even though they are underpaid and treated poorly, for years.

It's kind of like how employers prefer tall white guys. It's fucking retarded, but if I turned down all jobs where I think that worked in my favor? I'd turn down a lot of well-paying work.

I mean, sure, if it is mercenary work; if you want a problem (in my area of expertise) solved and then you want someone who is cool with being let go the next day? I'm probably a pretty good choice. I don't expect loyalty or anything; pay me on time for the hours I worked and I'm happy. I also do pretty well when one needs to ignore social mores or corporate bullshit to get something done. (I'm terrible, though, when /following/ those rules is important.) And I'm not completely stupid. Certainly, there are times when you won't be able to find someone better, in which case, you take what you can get, eh?

But for full-time "we want you to stick around for a while" jobs? I'm a comparatively terrible choice... I mean, assuming you have other applicants that are smarter and have basic competency. but from what I've seen? I do way better than people who are obviously more competent than I am, because of that arrogance.

I really like this comment for its honesty and ability to reflect on yourself with such brutal honesty too.

I'm not that confident and get really nervous before interviews, even for jobs that I'm not sure I even want. However, once I pass my nervousness, I can come across as "Excited, engaged, confident, interested in your problems" as you said, and also most times funny and fun to work with! However, I believe that in truth, whilst I can be funny, I'm not that much fun to work with. I can be argumentative, picky, stubborn and not easy to compromise.

I try to work on these attitude issues, but it's not something so easy for me to fix. However, in the interview context, like going on a date, I obviously won't expose those faults.

So there's definitely a disparity between the first impression a person can give, even over 5 hour pair programming sessions, and working day after day with them...

Yeah, well, evaluating people is /hard/ and, I would say, pretty nigh impossible to do well in a few days.

>However, in the interview context, like going on a date, I obviously won't expose those faults.

I dono about interviews... but I do know that in sales, sometimes revealing faults, especially real faults, can build a lot of trust. (I mean, the 'real faults' bit really only applies if you are selling something to a customer who understands the product... but that's really the only kind of selling I do, outside of the "selling myself" interview context.) It's more like dating than you think, though, in that I generally don't want to waste my time with someone who still believes that they will find someone "perfect" - you want a employer or customer or date who has been around the block and knows that everyone has flaws, and you've just gotta pick the flaw you can deal with. Then you want them to know about your flaws pretty soon after they know about your assets so that you can both cut your losses if a flaw is a dealbreaker. anything else is wasting time.

I mean, you've gotta show the counter-party your assets first, but in sales, that's easier than in dating, at least for me, as most of my sales prospects read about and come to me; they already think I'm pretty okay, so I can hit them with the "and here are the problems with my setup" just about right out the gate. Come to think of it... the time I've been really successful dating went similarly.

>So there's definitely a disparity between the first impression a person can give, even over 5 hour pair programming sessions, and working day after day with them...

Yeah. My biggest asset is that I do really well in novel situations. My biggest flaw is that I do really poorly once I'm settled in and the situation is no longer novel. So yeah; good short term contractor, shitty long term employee (compared to someone else with a similar level of knowledge)

I dislike like the "why do you want this job?" question because, unless I'm unemployed and really needing a job, the fact of the matter is that I don't know if I want the job. Interviews go both ways. I'll need time after the interview to consider the experience and try to predict whether I'd be happy working there.

Unless your company is doing something extraordinarily cool, chances are your product is not enough in and of itself to attract many if any developers on that basis alone. What will attract people is the quality of the work environment, the quality of the people, and the amount of money you can offer them. That's really the gist of it, and during the interview the candidate won't have exact knowledge of any of those factors.

As an interviewer I'd far prefer a candidate who said 'I'm still not sure I do want the job - it looked interesting, but I still need to get a sense of your team and how you work' than someone who said 'actually I just need a job'. 'Actually I just need a job' is one of the worst answers to that question.

Personally, I'd not like either answer.

You have to watch out for people just using you to get a better deal at their current job. That's why I put expiry clauses in all offers.

When asked the question about why I want to work somewhere I'm smart enough to sorta-lie, but when you get right down to it the real answer boils down to the fact that I want the job for the money. If I didn't have to work for money, I'd spend the time I spend at work hacking on my own projects.

Having said that, of course not all jobs are equal and some jobs are much more desirable for me than other jobs and so I will focus on these unique traits when describing why I'd like to work on that job, but if I were interviewing someone and they mentioned their primary motivation for taking the job was to get paid, I'd think it was a refreshingly honest answer and not hold it against them.

I think his issue was he was bruised and battered after 5 hours of relentless questioning that answering a question like that was the last thing on his mind.

A 5 hour interview is a ludicrous amount of time to take out of someone's day.

If it takes someone more than an hour to determine a programmer's basic worth, then they should fold up shop. The extra 4 hours is a waste of both side's time. You won't really know how good the person is until they are working for weeks or months so how to do you expect to learn this in 5 hours?

This is fascinating for me, I just came out of a 7 hour interview day earlier this week feeling hyped up and energized (although a little croaky after talking for 7 hours)

4-5 hour interviews seem pretty standard for any higher level position. A couple years ago I had an 8 hour interview. Now that was insane.

> It's good that you recognize from their feedback where you went wrong, but it's bad that you don't understand why "I just want a job" is a poor answer.

A bad answer but an honest answer. I mean, until you work at a place, or unless the job is fucking amazing, there is no reason to pick one over the other. For 95% of dev jobs, there is no big reason.

I sometimes think companies fall under power law distribution, when it comes to being interesting. Most of it is CRUD app work.