I think a big part of the problem is an overly narrow view of what a qualified candidate looks like from the hiring side. Tons of qualified people are rejected because they don't look qualified to the people hiring.
For example, recently a friend had an interview and the guy interviewing him seemed disappointed that my friend didn't have experience solving a problem in a particular way as if that were the only way to solve that problem. In my opinion, the way the interviewer solves that problem is inefficient. But they didn't seem to see any other way.
(Yes, a candidate can communicate their abilities better. But in my experience, this only goes so far, and the people hiring need to make more effort.)
A better process would be more open-minded and test itself by interviewing candidates who the interviewer thinks are bad. In science there's an idea called negative testing. If a test is supposed to separate good from bad, you can't just check what the test says is good, you also need to check what the test says is bad. If good things are marked as bad by the test, something's wrong with the test. If I were hiring, I'd probably start by filtering out people who don't meet very basic requirements and have some fairly open-ended interviews early with randomly selected people (who pass the initial screening) to refine the hiring process and help me realize gaps in my understanding.
I agree with this. What stands out to me is that the hiring process often treats one internal mental model as “correct”, and anything outside of it as a flaw in the candidate.
The example you gave about solving the same problem differently is common; different approaches get mistaken for lack of competence.
I like the negative testing idea a lot. If a hiring process never examines who it’s rejecting, it has no way to know whether it’s filtering quality or just filtering familiarity.
Have you seen teams actually test or evolve their hiring criteria this way, or does it usually stay fixed once defined?
> Have you seen teams actually test or evolve their hiring criteria this way, or does it usually stay fixed once defined?
I'm sure many folks hiring do iteratively improve their hiring criteria, though I'm skeptical of how rigorous their process is. For all I know they could make their hiring criteria worse over time! I have never been involved in a hiring decision, so what I write is from the perspective of a job candidate.
That makes sense, and I think your skepticism is reasonable.
From the candidate side, it’s almost impossible to tell whether criteria are being refined thoughtfully or just drifting based on recent hires or strong opinions in the room.
What strikes me is that without explicit feedback loops, iteration can easily turn into reinforcement, people conclude “this worked” without ever seeing the counterfactual of who was filtered out.
From the outside, it often looks less like a calibrated process and more like accumulated intuition. I’m curious whether that matches what others here have seen from the inside.
I've thought about starting my own community group, but I am pretty skeptical that I could find many folks interested in what I'm interested in. I think this is a real barrier to many. Any advice?
To elaborate, in the US, existing groups tend to be narrow and uninteresting to me. In most places I've lived, it's basically a mix of sports/fitness groups, art groups, "tech" (i.e., programmer; traditional engineers like myself won't feel entirely welcome), social dancing, popular fiction reading group, activism, etc. I can't say that any of these genuinely interest me and/or would be a good place to meet people. At a fitness class, for example, many people aren't interested in casual conversation as far as I'm aware. And without genuine interest in the subject, it's hard to engage.
Personally, I've found that running clubs attract diverse groups and tend toward activities that create ample opportunities for smalltalk and meeting people with shared interests outside of the sport. This doesn't hold true for most other sporting activities, in my experience.
Interesting. I was a decent runner in high school, way back. I'm a cyclist now, but I found that cycling groups tend to either be focused on athletic performance or activism and I don't particularly care for either at this point. I'll have to try some running groups as there are a lot of local ones.
That's interesting, but in my experience cycling groups are the most social individual sports groups (even more social than many team sports even). Even the performance focused groups tend to stop at the coffee shop for some banter after the ride, and some less performance oriented groups seem to be more focused on the coffee than even the ride itself.
Are you talking about road cycling or mountain biking? My experience is definitely with the former. I think it helps that in group rides you automatically end up riding next to someone new and chatting along. Easily breaks the ice.
Hmm... okay, I'll try some more local cycling groups as there are a lot of them. Maybe one lesson to take from all the comments I'm reading here is that there's a lot of variation between groups.
I'm thinking road cycling. When I was in grad school, a decade ago, I briefly participated in a student road cycling group. It was very performance oriented as I recall. I was definitely slower than them and my heavy steel commuter bike contrasted strongly with their lighter racing bikes. I talked to some of them, but not during the rides. I was older than the vast majority of them as I recall and in retrospect that might have prevented me from making friends there.
15 years ago I started cycling, by going to amateur XC races. I did that for almost 10 years and it was fun, I got some friends doing it and it worked great for a while. A combination of cycling injury and many people leaving the country ended that endeavor, but it is an example of some simple and practical approach. I was not even looking to socialize, but improve my sedentary life, I found others with similar interests.
I have a childhood friend that is cycling, but he lives in the Netherlands. There people who are cycling more than daily drivers are interested in athletic performance or activism and it kind of sucks, but he got friends skiing and scuba diving, as long as there are common interests you will find some decent people to socialize with.
My experience was sadly quite the opposite. When I moved to my current city two decades ago, I started attending a run club because I wanted to train for my first marathon and figured it would be a great opportunity to meet new people. Unfortunately, the group was extremely insular and eventually realized I was wasting my time expecting the group to engage with me in any meaningful way.
Funny, I've had the exact same thought, and doubts, as yours. I really dislike communities focused on a certain topic, as I really don't see myself as part of any one thing that defines me. If I were doing rock climbing, I still wouldn't enjoy talking about rock climbing the entire day with my rock climbing friends; my interests are much wider. Which is the reason I do not participate in any community on- and off-line.
I honestly wish social clubs were a thing, and you would get introduced to people from all walks of life. Perhaps this is the reason the Internet is so polarizing: people don't intermingle much, they live in their small niches and echo chambers, and have to put real effort and go out of their way to engage with someone that has a new perspective. Algorithms entrenching us deeper within the same niches are to blame.
I enjoy socialising (sparingly), but I'm not an extrovert and herding people is not my definition of fun, yet I keep feeling I should be the one to form whatever community I and people like me would enjoy participating in. What a conundrum. It's also much easier to make and advertise a club around a topic than an open one for "interesting" people without sounding like a posh cult for elitists.
I relate very closely, having had the same thoughts over the past few years. Social clubs sound good in theory, but in my experience it's difficult to connect with people without a central activity or subject to act as a touchstone. It's a frustrating sort of paradox where the best social groups diverge greatly from their core theme, and yet the core theme is necessary to reach and maintain critical mass.
I think it's possible to get around the problem, but it would take just the right structure; there should be activities, but enough of a variety to have something for people from all walks of life. But also not too much of a variety so as not to appeal only to those interested in constantly trying new things. Perhaps a set of some baseline, fairly universal activities, with space for individual members to share their own hobbies and interests from time to time in a group setting? I don't know exactly, but it's something I've been considering for a while, and it feels like there must be an answer somewhere in there.
I think the problem comes when certain topical groups interpret their mission narrowly. Based on your other nearby comment, you mention your experience with a rock climbing group that doesn't so narrowly focus on rock climbing. I think that's the right way to do it.
There was one group I used to attend where I was definitely not as interested in the topic as others. I recall someone at the meetup said to me something along the lines of "If you don't agree with X then why are you here?" Well, I attended because I found a lot of interesting people there, and I know I wasn't the only one. Some organizers made the meetups unstructured conversation, which was great for me. Honestly, I'd just like to meet other people interested in a particular topic. Other organizers preferred meetups with more specific assigned discussion topics. I rarely cared much about the assigned topics and they made the unstructured conversation I wanted to have much more difficult or even impossible (particularly for the online meetups). I don't attend those meetups any longer in part because of the assigned topics.
If you don't mind, could you share a bit about those meetups with unstructured conversation? I would like to attend something like that, some keywords to look for would be helpful.
If the website/Facebook event/email/etc. mentions an assigned topic, then it's not likely going to have much unstructured conversation. Other than that, I can't think of any reliable ahead of time signs to look for. One thing I think I've learned from reading tons of comments today at HN is that I should try more meetups just to see what they're like because you can't really know ahead of time.
Anyhow, the specific group I was referring to was LessWrong meetups in 3 different cities over a period of about a decade. As I said, I'm not quite aligned with their philosophy, but I did find a bunch of interesting people at those meetups.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in trying to pursue groups with relevant interests, I've run into one of three issues:
1. The club/etc follows its core conceit closely, and discussions and such naturally don't branch off far
2. Connected to 1, the folks who actively engage in a club are typically very invested in the subject; when my interest is more casual, it can be difficult to connect with those more passionate
And 3., most critically, the things I am passionate about are too niche to sustain dedicated clubs anywhere but the most dense of population centers, which for a variety of reasons I have no interest in relocating to.
I would appreciate a group where a variety of unique interests is encouraged. I enjoy interacting with people who are passionate in their own ways, even when they don't necessarily line up with my own passions; I realize there are clubs and such out there which likely fit my preferences, but I have yet to find one reasonably nearby.
You've got gentlemen's clubs of the kind that Phileas Fogg from "Around the World in 80 Days" belonged to. They were leisure spaces where the rich could socialize with each other, dine from a wider menu than their own domestic staff could offer, access a bigger reading library, and organize group activities like automotive clubs and regattas.
Then you've got private societies like the Freemasons and the Rotary Club, which were usually segregated by gender and race, had a religious component, and offered services like mutual aid and insurance.
I think you’re perhaps too narrowly defining what a lot of groups are for. Take climbing for example, as you did - I met tons of folks while climbing, but we talked about all sorts of things. In between attempting routes it’s mostly just shooting the shit.
My point being that a lot of clubs or groups, especially in fitness, don’t have a rule against talking about other stuff. In fact, most are incredibly conducive to it.
> If I were doing rock climbing, I still wouldn't enjoy talking about rock climbing the entire day with my rock climbing friends
Um, have you actually tried? I have a "rock climbing" friends group, and it's rare that we talk rock climbing outside an actual climbing outing. Some of them are at the climbing gym 2-3x a week, some of them 1x a week, some join only once every 1-2 months. But what we do a lot is hang out just for dinner, for some hike on the weekend, going to a concert, whatnot. Climbing was really just the initial excuse to meet, by now it's only a detail we all more or less do now and then.
> I honestly wish social clubs were a thing, and you would get introduced to people from all walks of life
They are. Elks, Knights of Columbus, etc. Not as popular with the younger crowd, but nothing is stopping you from joining or starting your own.
As for the point around feeling like you have to talk about rock climbing all day: you don't. Rock climbing is just the entry point, which allows for a shared conversation topic before you branch into other things.
As another commenter said, at lot of the fraternal organizations are religious. The Elks site says to be eligible for membership, you must 1) Be at least 21 years of age; 2) Believe in God; 3) Be a citizen of the United States who pledges allegiance to and salutes the American Flag; 4) Be of good character. The Knights of Columbus says membership is limited to practicing Catholic men.
That works for some people. I like the activity-based groups. Besides the sports groups, a community garden is also good.
That's strange, I know a bunch of guys in my hometown who hang out at the Elks who aren't religious. Most of them are probably confirmed or at least baptized though.
Yeah, the Eagles Lodge in my town is pretty lax about it - they do want you to do one community service day a year but that to them was basically a "substitute" for "be of good character and righteous" or whatever.
I'll try starting a more niche group just to see what happens. Maybe I'm wrong and I'll find a handful of interesting people. Still, there's a nagging feeling in the back of my mind. If the number of people interested in a topic is small enough, reaching them can be really hard. And only a fraction of them would be willing/able to meet.
As for specific topics, there are many I could pick. My problem isn't a lack of interest in general, just a lack of overlap between my interests and what's available. One I think might have a decent chance of success would be a group based around information searching, both online and in the real world. Despite being an engineer, I've often found a lot of common ground with librarians. I love talking about the subject and could learn a lot about it. It's not going to become irrelevant any time soon either, even with LLMs, due to information siloing.
Here's my experience with (attempted) theft on a train:
I once was on a MARC train at DC Union Station. Some train cars have electrical sockets, so I plugged in a bike light I had since I'd be taking a bike for the last part of the trip. The train hadn't left the station yet. I was standing near the seat with the socket. Some unassuming looking guy was walking through the train car, like probably 100 did before him, when he grabbed the light, unplugged it, and kept walking. I immediately confronted him (I was in his path) saying something like "What are you doing?" Without a word, he handed me the light and walked off the train. I found a conductor like 15 seconds later and they called security, who apparently detained the guy.
This guy was way more brazen about stealing something of little value than I had expected. I was standing near the seat and watching it! I guess he didn't expect me to be the owner.
This reminded me of some earlier discussion on Hacker News about using LLMs trained on old texts to determine novelty and obviousness of a patent application: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43440273
The core simulator part works, but I don't yet have a user interface or documentation. Probably just going to be text input files to start, maybe a GUI later. Recently, I'm mostly working on testing.
The simulator is object-oriented and basically allows one to build up a blaster from separate control volumes and connections between control volumes. This is useful as it allows the same core simulator framework to handle different blaster configurations and even variants of them. For example, someone asked me to make the spring piston able to pull a vacuum on its back side due to not having sufficient flow. That's easy here as I just need to add another control volume and the appropriate connection onto the basic springer configuration.
I don't think crowdfunding is a good funding source for science in general. Crowdfunding's going to overemphasize already popular and easy to explain science at the expense of everything else. Boring sounding and unfamiliar stuff like the research I'd like to do would not succeed.
I disagree. There's a guy that doesn't have much attention that's creating fuel from burning plastic. He got crowdfunded. I also recall finding a website way back when of a dude that explored the old railroad tunnels of downtown Chicago. I would have 100% funded that guy for content.
He gets $36K from about 800 donors for a project that seems pretty easy to explain ("creating fuel from burning plastic") and is something probably millions of people are interested in. Wikipedia says he has millions of followers!
The stuff I'd like to do would probably not have even 800 people interested in it after I carefully explained it. And $36K is not a lot when it comes to experimental research in the physical world.
In my view, working a day job and taking periodic sabbaticals would have better ROI for this guy and myself.
> "Boring sounding and unfamiliar stuff like the research I'd like to do would not succeed."
"Boring sounding" to anyone who don't have a "passion" for that particular area of science as you must if you're wanting to research it. The (hard) trick is to get your crowdfunding request in front of the specific eyeballs that will understand (and be excited by) your motivations and interests enough to want to finance advancing that research.
For example, recently a friend had an interview and the guy interviewing him seemed disappointed that my friend didn't have experience solving a problem in a particular way as if that were the only way to solve that problem. In my opinion, the way the interviewer solves that problem is inefficient. But they didn't seem to see any other way.
(Yes, a candidate can communicate their abilities better. But in my experience, this only goes so far, and the people hiring need to make more effort.)
A better process would be more open-minded and test itself by interviewing candidates who the interviewer thinks are bad. In science there's an idea called negative testing. If a test is supposed to separate good from bad, you can't just check what the test says is good, you also need to check what the test says is bad. If good things are marked as bad by the test, something's wrong with the test. If I were hiring, I'd probably start by filtering out people who don't meet very basic requirements and have some fairly open-ended interviews early with randomly selected people (who pass the initial screening) to refine the hiring process and help me realize gaps in my understanding.
reply