jseban
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
There are gaggles of desperate women running after celebrities. It is happening.
Workers only play one part in this, not the whole. The factory was built by someone who had a design for it, and you need investments, with returns for that to ever happen.
The "workers" never build any factories, it's impossible to get a large amount of people to pull in the same direction and realise such an idea, without having a central single point of leadership.
And for anyone to take on that leadership and take that risk, there needs to be a reward.
You need to think about the future, not only today. If you share everything with the workers you will just exhaust that resource, and then get outcompeted by others who allow more innovation.
As we have already seen in history for example with the car industry in detroit, or England in the late 1970s. So what is your argument for why it should work this time, and why we should apply the politics of the 1970s? No argument whatsoever other than "trust me, I know a better alternative to capitalism". Sorry but that's just nonsense.
The most important thing for everyone is to be as close as possible to the next jeff bezos. The only way you can have a good job is to be close to
1. innovation or 2. extraction of natural resources.
Because that's how value is created, and how opportunity arise. There is no pie being delivered by "someone else" for ever and ever, that you just have to divide.
Leftist always assume that these opportunities come out of nowhere, and will also last forever.
It leads to stagnation.
Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
Because I am working class.
Workers are way too close to reality to ever get seduced by such ideas, they create things with their own hands, so they understand perfectly well that this needs to be done, to create any value for anyone.
It's only sheltered middle class people with bullshit jobs who come up with the idea that we could somehow just get rid of this annoying work.
Everyone who is not a billionaire, but still currently holds a privileged position compared to the pliable masses, will benefit from such propaganda of over simplified "injustice", because if will deflect attention away from their own privilege and keep them safe.
You will see this most clearly if you look at ivory tower academics or cultural elite, who love to hate rich capitalists for being greedy, to get the "people" on their side to avoid having their own privilege under scrutiny, which in reality is often just as greedy and selfish.
Yeah it is total garbage. Even when you put in all the work to get matches and arrange dates (which takes a ton of work), it's still basically a blind date, so when you actually meet there's still only a small chance that you will actually match.
And you always get worse matches, as a man, through the apps compared to real life. You will pay a price for that convenience of swiping.
There's an increased risk for women when they let men bypass that filter of being sociable and brave enough to befriend people in real life social situations.
If a woman can already go to a bar and easily pick out a guy, and easily judge the men, why would they use a dating app? It only makes sense if they somehow would get better matches there, so the men will have to lower their standards as a result of that convenience.
I just see online dating, and classified ads in the paper before that, as a way for people who don't fit the social norm to meet. And that's fine. But I don't see any reason for everyone to start doing that, and people who are normally sociable will just have a worse experience.
You can think that's "chill" but sooner or later the outside world will run away from you and you will be outcompeted.
Just look at what happened now to the german car industry, they are so proud of their strong unions, but they get outcompeted by tesla instead who is now building car factories in germany. It almost got killed by the unions in the same way detroit was in the US when the japanese caught up.
Nice sweet union deals with lifetime guarantees of great benefits, mean nothing when the whole company disappears, and the country goes into a recession. It's just putting your head in the sand for a while and pretending that you have found the perfect position where opportunity will last forever.
Think also a bit about who is benefitting and making money from instigating this type of jealousy, being exploited as an unpaid click puppet is even worse than being a warehouse worker.
Middle class people want to project misery and suffering that don't exist, on unwilling "workers", just to validate their own silly middle class job.
If you really believe in unions, then fight for a union in your own workplace.
There is no such thing as fair, it's impossible to even define what that would be, and that's the whole point of the free market, that it solves this problem. The more you use these outdated political catch phrases, the more impractical and meaningless things become. Life is unfair, nature is unfair.
> No one "prefers a society where everyone's poor", that's just childish and off-putting straw men by you.
This is demonstrably what happens as we have seen during 100 years of large scale experiments involving millions of people. If you keep pushing socialist politics from the 1970s I'm just going to suspect that the same bad things will happen, as happened then. When there is such a massive body of evidence, why should anyone suddenly start thinking "oh yeah, I bet it works this time, let's try that again"?
> Please explain how having a few billionaires "comes with the benefit of more jobs" and stuff for everyone else.
Because it's the only way to make people pull in the same direction, to create value in a positive bottom line.
> How is it better to share the crumbles, instead of the whole bread? Perplexing.
Because there will be no bread to begin with, if you share the whole bread, because nobody wants to bake a bread when they are forced to give away the whole thing.
Same here, I really could not care less if some guy has 10 sports cars in a basement somewhere, so what? It seems so incredibly childish and petty to walk around and be angry about that.
And when having a few billionaires comes with the benefit of more jobs, higher salaries and better economy for me and everyone else, then it seems great to me.
How can people prefer an equal society where everyone's poor just to be relieved from their childish jealousy? It's not going ever be fixed anyway, because nature and life is always unfair.
I would be very very surprised if there is a majority of the people working for amazon that wants to form unions, I'm sure it's just a small minority.
The actual working class people probably really don't want middle class people to "fight" for them in this way, and be used as puppets in their virtue signalling competition.
Promoting postwar politics in 2022 is not progressive, it's regressive.