🐈

Interviews are not designed to make sure getting someone to move across the country or to a different country will work out for everyone. They are designed to test if you fit neatly into a box. E.g. "During my time at school the stupid people flunked out of algorithms, ..."

"... Here is a question to test if you, like me, were part of the non stupid group." The result is that only certain types of people pass the filter which creates a positive feedback loop for certain types of people.

It's actually a lot better than many historical precedents. If you can prove that you have the base cake in place, any type of frosting is accepted. Many industries do not have this. Tech is much more meritocratic than many other jobs.

The pressure comes when tech becomes the only good career. The kneejerk reaction is to increase the 'power' of the existing system (making questions more difficult) to (rightfully) react against pressure to lower standards.

Instead of the pressure prompting increased knowledge sharing, teaching, mentoring, guidance, etc... it increases defensiveness. "here's proof you're stupid, solve this algo I just worked on yesterday"

Equality can come from building people up as well as tearing people down. "Lift me up, or I'll tear you down."

Tech isn't even that great of a job. There's room for creativity and blah blah blah but most jobs are dry data wrangling. It's just money for the most part. Those who understand this become VCs which is the same dry data wrangling except now w/ philosophy and shit.

Summed up in a more spiritual manner: The desire to be sacred debases all into profanity and is caused by treating individuals as means to an end. To ignore someones sacredness is to create the narcissistic wound that causes them to forget this and malleable to your will.

What makes tech interviewing stupid is that those who are part of the 'in' group consider themselves sacred but must maintain that sacredness by emphasizing the barrier that separates them from the profane.