> The Thiel question is a great one because it reveals that most people hold conventional opinions and call them “heretical.”
Selecting a response that sounds "heretical" but is actually fairly mainstream sounds like exactly the sort of response you'd try to come up with in a job interview.
In other news, the famous interview question "what would you say is your greatest weakness" reveals that most people's greatest weakness is actually not very bad, and could even be spun as a positive.
> In other news, the famous interview question "what would you say is your greatest weakness" reveals that most people's greatest weakness is actually not very bad, and could even be spun as a positive.
I think that question survives not because it plumbs the candidate's greatest weakness but because it shows how gracefully they can walk a tightrope. Same for the Thiel question.
I’m also not convinced it’s a useful interview question because of the issue you raise, but thinking your mainstream views are heretical extends far beyond job interviews.
It seems like whenever I hear people talk about politics, they speak as though they’re persecuted lone wolves going against the current, but they tend to have opinions that something like half the country holds, which I would define as very mainstream.
I also think this occurs with myths that have been “busted,” someone will go around for years thinking that everyone else is sheep for still believing in the myth, when the reality is everyone else read the same article and no one really believes the myth anymore.
And then there are the countless posts on Reddit or Tumblr or Imgur or Facebook where someone dramatically makes a stand, admitting that they will be burned at the stake for their position, to the great applause of everyone watching.
that was kind of my take as well. My initial response is that 95% of people who interview think they have some magical thing they can ask or do that gives them a way to analyze for certain traits.
And it's always false. These people always conclude things they ought not to conclude.
I wonder if many of these "think differently" questions are less about finding a brilliant theorist and more about finding people who can cope with social condemnation that comes with operating the gears of capital and have the capacity to produce rationales that create enough space to operate without being shut down.
After all, few big innovations come from business, most come from research. Thiel is looking for capable managers of capital.
This after all explains Theil's own career of holding opinions that are not brilliant, but are socially destructive while simultaneously making him rich. He think the female vote was a mistake, he founded a deep state company that assists in intelligence gathering for the military-industrial complex and the NSA. He killed a newspaper.... and so on. He has been called a neo-feudalist.
This seems like practically it would be used to not hire people on the basis of 'culture fit'. I can think of many answers to this question that could disclose a protected status, political or religious ideology, or some other belief that now you have to consider in the candidate. (What if someone says, "Software engineers should fight for unionization.")
Do you really get a good signal on the three things the question is intended to find? (Whether people fear judgement, aren't introspective, etc.)
It's a good predictor if you wanted to hire people that knew who Peter Thiel was.
It's the sort of question that people answer better if it's not the first time they've heard it.
A really good candidate might be able to push back and ask what population of people the interviewer meant by "few people". There's views that I have around technology that few people in the world (relativity) have, but are orthodox if you narrowed that group to just software developers.
> "I can think of many answers to this question that could disclose a protected status, political or religious ideology, or some other belief that now you have to consider in the candidate."
Funny you should jump straight to those things. Given how opinionated we all are, I imagine most experienced software professionals would have at least one contrarian opinion about something technological in their profession. I can think of a few without even trying.
And also ironic, given the subject matter of this particular article (contrarianism as empowering idea generator).
Once upon a time, similar thinkpieces extolled the virtues of asking candidates to introspect on their greatest weakness. How...original.
What avant garde, thought provoking questions will people in a decade ask as a reaction to present interviewing trends?
Actually I think that question is a candidate for its own answer, now that I think about it...this is like borrowing cocktail party discussion for interviewing.
According to the article, "most people think they are heretical, but are actually mainstream" -- that includes the interviewer!
Any candidate smart enough to have heretical beliefs is probably also smart enough to know that the beliefs are heretical because they are unpopular and voicing those opinions to someone who, by the odds, most likely isn't heretical, but thinks they are, can only be a negative for your hiring prospects.
A comment on the format rather than the content: it’s weird how this article includes what look like pull-quotes, but are actually embedded tweets by the author saying the same stuff that’s in the article.
I’ve seen that style used when quoting other people’s tweets, but exclusively quoting yourself that way just seems strange!
Yep this definitely comes across as a cheap way of getting more clicks/follows rather than actually being useful to the reader. This guys heretical belief seems to be that self-promotion isn’t tacky.
This tends to provide more context by means of twitter comments. You can click the tweet under a particular quotation and see the discussion that happened underneath it.
> If someone answers the question with a mainstream view, it’s possible that they just aren’t self-aware enough to know a view is well-held. To be self-aware means you ask questions of yourself, such as “how many other people also have this view that I think I alone hold?”
Is this really a characteristic of self awareness? Seems more like awareness of thoughts, trends, and opinions of others/society.
It's almost like the ability to answer this question perfectly, requires intimate knowledge of widely held beliefs/trends which may in turn have the opposite effect of selecting for people hyper aware of trends and others' ideas rather than those more deeply immersed in their own individual work, ideas and experience.
My own answer: "Most traditional graphics programmers are wasting their time. AI renderers will replace all the techniques we use today, not merely augment the techniques. A graphics engine in 20 years will look nothing like current codebases."
I'm referring to cutting-edge engines. There will always be space for stylized renderers. But photorealism? All your BRDF knowledge might as well be raindrops in the wind.
It's unfortunate that the most interesting ideas can't be voiced publicly. It's a good question. I don't think it's good for interviews, but it's a good way to meet interesting people.
Rendering already has turned over several times. Graphics programmers from the past already 'wasted their time'. Techniques have been replaced. I don't think your main hypothesis is very heretical. AI will probably take a prominent role in all upcoming rendering tech.
No one who wants the job and isn't an idiot would answer this truthfully as most answers would be misunderstood and in many cases would lead one to not get the job. It's one of the stupidest interview questions in a sea of stupid interview questions, one that reveals absolutely nothing about whether a candidate would be good for the job. It reveals a lot of information unrelated to how the candidate will perform that can be used to discriminate against and not hire the candidate: aka a "cultural fit" reason to discriminate and not hire.
Having an unpopular opinion that's also backed up well is rare in the information age. If a view has evidence to support it, that evidence is available to everyone and there will undoubtedly be communities that support it.
Folks with heretical views tend to either have rare knowledge or to be wrong.
Having some communities support it does not contradict that it can still be an unpopular opinion. For example, consuming alcohol is a socially acceptable practice in practically all Western nations. There are studies showing the strong correlation between alcohol consumption and crimes, rape, homicides, etc. yet people are still willing to continue the practice because "it's fun".
The general idea behind the question is brilliant, but I doubt its usefulness as an interview question.
When I read that in his book, my first thought was how I would answer it in an interview, and I think the unstated subtext to the question is:
"What important truth do very few people agree with you on that is big enough to feel important, but I will not feel threatened or offended by?”
"What heretical views you have?" is a great question to ask a friend over a beer, but as an interview question, it's the liberal arts version of those horrid interview puzzles.
Agreed. In an interview, I'm trying to present the best possible version of myself so I can make a favorable impression. I'll likely not share my non-mainstream religious, political, or socioeconomic views in a professional setting (I try to avoid such subjects at work since they're usually off topic and tend to ruffle feathers), and technical views are much more nuanced and difficult to come up with on the fly (e.g. an "original" view on code formatting).
Once I know more about the company, I know what types of answers will be useful. There's only so much I can glean from the company website, and for larger companies, it's even less clear where I'd end up working.
For example, a rant about how strict work hours will likely result in a poorer product (due to poor employee satisfaction) doesn't make sense in a company where being available for emergencies is more important than delivering features, but it does in an R&D role that's more creative and less results oriented. My input depends on the needs of the company, and I'm not going to try to force a solution that was designed for a very different company.
So, I'm going to be more conservative in such situations, which isn't the outcome the interviewer expects.
I much prefer situational questions, perhaps based on my prior experience. For example, maybe something like:
> Give an example where your input changed the direction your team went on a project. Or alternatively, describe an instance where a team member changed your mind and lead to an improved end result. Ideally, this should be an instance where existing processes were ignored and ended in a better result.
I think that gets at the heart of what the interviewer is looking for. If the candidate can at least recognize when a better solution presents itself, they're likely capable of thinking outside the box. Discussing the situation can help shed more light on it.
Is it just me or is this post riddled with grammatical or spelling errors? Or just omission of words or backwards logic:
> One learns quickly in life that it is never fun to be unpopular. Everyone has felt it at some point in their life. Most people never want to feel it again and so they go against the grain.
Why would most people go against the grain if they never wanted to feel unpopular again?
First of all, is there any evidence that this question is predictive? Secondly, the article is celebrating this question (which certainly is creative and somewhat intriguing) in a way that seems to be weirdly inconsistent: you ask me about a heretical view I have. In favor of the question, let's assume that it's a view related to the industry/product/whatever I am supposed to work with. Now, if most people disagree with my view, how likely is it that you will agree? This assumes both you and I possess a secret truth. You, supposedly an influential business leader, want to keep this truth a secret, or fail to convince others of the truth. This just seems bogus. If I succeed at answering this question in a way you like, isn't it more likely that I make something up to cater to your inflated ego?
If there's no evidence that this question works, my line of reasoning is just as good as the one provided in the article.
Now, if most people disagree with my view, how likely is it that you will agree?
I think this is the spot where your logic stopped working.
The idea is that you don't care whether they agree. You'll listen to opposing arguments, of course, but the goal isn't to get them to agree. They're asking you because they're interested.
Or at least, that's how it should work. It stops working when it becomes an interview question.
The point is to see whether someone thinks originally. If you have opinions you're reluctant to share among peers without wording it carefully, and you've spent a lot of time thinking very carefully about the topic, then there's a pretty good chance you're an interesting person to know.
EDIT: Another way to phrase it: If you give an answer that you truly believe and that you've thought carefully about for a long time, and they disagree loudly and immediately, then there are two possibilities: Either they have given the topic more thought than you (which is entirely possible), or they are less open-minded than they think they are. Both outcomes give useful information to you.
> If I succeed at answering this question in a way you like ... cater to your inflated ego.
That's why it's important to have a criteria ahead of time.
If I were asking the question, I would look/ask for:
* A non-trivial heretical view (think OO/FP, unit testing, etc., not some obscure language operator)
* A set of arguments to justify the heretical belief
* A set of objections to their heretical belief
* Counter-arguments to those objections
* Evidence-based and logical reasoning to the above
* Openness to counter-argument, willingness to debate the issue
I don't think it's a very good question to surprise someone with.
Ehhhh the responses given by this question, in my opinion, would be heavily driven by the interviewee answering in a way they think the interviewer wants to hear. Most people are self aware enough that they are not going to be spewing out their _truly_ controversial views on politics/religion/whatever to this person they barely know.
You cannot say that nobody holds controversial views when the views discussed come from job interviews, of all places...
I generally like a lot of what Thiel says, but people need to be very careful about being heretical for the sake of being heretical. I find a lot of people (myself included) have a tendency to pretend some mainstream way of doing something is wrong for the sake of having some insight that everyone else missed. However, there is generally, at a minimum, some wisdom of the crowds.
It doesn't just assume that, it throws a massive celebration party for that question without any basis for it whatsoever. Other than some self-absorbed opinions.
This is a better question to ask oneself with an open mind that to pose to a job candidate.
No heretic is an island. The heretical idea stands in opposition to some convention or norm. Unless the interviewer is intimately familiar with the norm (and self-aware enough to know the difference between convention and heresy), s/he won't be capable of judging whether the response is indeed heretical.
When asked to oneself, the question forces exploration of the idea itself and the norms you believe you stand in opposition to. You might even need to ask around to gauge how heretical your view really is. Maybe you'll give a talk or write an essay - or just post a response in a discussion thread in HN.
However you explore the question, the answer might be surprising. At least I've been sometimes very surprised by ideas I thought were very odd not getting the reaction I thought they would.
[+] [-] Nition|6 years ago|reply
Selecting a response that sounds "heretical" but is actually fairly mainstream sounds like exactly the sort of response you'd try to come up with in a job interview.
In other news, the famous interview question "what would you say is your greatest weakness" reveals that most people's greatest weakness is actually not very bad, and could even be spun as a positive.
[+] [-] hirundo|6 years ago|reply
I think that question survives not because it plumbs the candidate's greatest weakness but because it shows how gracefully they can walk a tightrope. Same for the Thiel question.
[+] [-] ksdale|6 years ago|reply
It seems like whenever I hear people talk about politics, they speak as though they’re persecuted lone wolves going against the current, but they tend to have opinions that something like half the country holds, which I would define as very mainstream.
I also think this occurs with myths that have been “busted,” someone will go around for years thinking that everyone else is sheep for still believing in the myth, when the reality is everyone else read the same article and no one really believes the myth anymore.
And then there are the countless posts on Reddit or Tumblr or Imgur or Facebook where someone dramatically makes a stand, admitting that they will be burned at the stake for their position, to the great applause of everyone watching.
[+] [-] rytill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celticmusic|6 years ago|reply
And it's always false. These people always conclude things they ought not to conclude.
[+] [-] tehjoker|6 years ago|reply
After all, few big innovations come from business, most come from research. Thiel is looking for capable managers of capital.
This after all explains Theil's own career of holding opinions that are not brilliant, but are socially destructive while simultaneously making him rich. He think the female vote was a mistake, he founded a deep state company that assists in intelligence gathering for the military-industrial complex and the NSA. He killed a newspaper.... and so on. He has been called a neo-feudalist.
[+] [-] cvhashim|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pfhreak|6 years ago|reply
This seems like practically it would be used to not hire people on the basis of 'culture fit'. I can think of many answers to this question that could disclose a protected status, political or religious ideology, or some other belief that now you have to consider in the candidate. (What if someone says, "Software engineers should fight for unionization.")
Do you really get a good signal on the three things the question is intended to find? (Whether people fear judgement, aren't introspective, etc.)
[+] [-] gav|6 years ago|reply
It's a good predictor if you wanted to hire people that knew who Peter Thiel was.
It's the sort of question that people answer better if it's not the first time they've heard it.
A really good candidate might be able to push back and ask what population of people the interviewer meant by "few people". There's views that I have around technology that few people in the world (relativity) have, but are orthodox if you narrowed that group to just software developers.
[+] [-] ThrowawayR2|6 years ago|reply
Funny you should jump straight to those things. Given how opinionated we all are, I imagine most experienced software professionals would have at least one contrarian opinion about something technological in their profession. I can think of a few without even trying.
[+] [-] femiagbabiaka|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaymath|6 years ago|reply
Once upon a time, similar thinkpieces extolled the virtues of asking candidates to introspect on their greatest weakness. How...original.
What avant garde, thought provoking questions will people in a decade ask as a reaction to present interviewing trends?
Actually I think that question is a candidate for its own answer, now that I think about it...this is like borrowing cocktail party discussion for interviewing.
[+] [-] milofeynman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mr_Shiba|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Avshalom|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericb|6 years ago|reply
According to the article, "most people think they are heretical, but are actually mainstream" -- that includes the interviewer!
Any candidate smart enough to have heretical beliefs is probably also smart enough to know that the beliefs are heretical because they are unpopular and voicing those opinions to someone who, by the odds, most likely isn't heretical, but thinks they are, can only be a negative for your hiring prospects.
[+] [-] iainmerrick|6 years ago|reply
I’ve seen that style used when quoting other people’s tweets, but exclusively quoting yourself that way just seems strange!
[+] [-] petetnt|6 years ago|reply
[0]: https://twitter.com/PenLlawen/status/1210874395734003713
[+] [-] sings|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phoe-krk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanpquig|6 years ago|reply
Is this really a characteristic of self awareness? Seems more like awareness of thoughts, trends, and opinions of others/society.
It's almost like the ability to answer this question perfectly, requires intimate knowledge of widely held beliefs/trends which may in turn have the opposite effect of selecting for people hyper aware of trends and others' ideas rather than those more deeply immersed in their own individual work, ideas and experience.
[+] [-] sillysaurusx|6 years ago|reply
I'm referring to cutting-edge engines. There will always be space for stylized renderers. But photorealism? All your BRDF knowledge might as well be raindrops in the wind.
It's unfortunate that the most interesting ideas can't be voiced publicly. It's a good question. I don't think it's good for interviews, but it's a good way to meet interesting people.
[+] [-] djmips|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnm1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flaque|6 years ago|reply
Folks with heretical views tend to either have rare knowledge or to be wrong.
[+] [-] apta|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timoth3y|6 years ago|reply
When I read that in his book, my first thought was how I would answer it in an interview, and I think the unstated subtext to the question is:
"What important truth do very few people agree with you on that is big enough to feel important, but I will not feel threatened or offended by?”
"What heretical views you have?" is a great question to ask a friend over a beer, but as an interview question, it's the liberal arts version of those horrid interview puzzles.
[+] [-] beatgammit|6 years ago|reply
Once I know more about the company, I know what types of answers will be useful. There's only so much I can glean from the company website, and for larger companies, it's even less clear where I'd end up working.
For example, a rant about how strict work hours will likely result in a poorer product (due to poor employee satisfaction) doesn't make sense in a company where being available for emergencies is more important than delivering features, but it does in an R&D role that's more creative and less results oriented. My input depends on the needs of the company, and I'm not going to try to force a solution that was designed for a very different company.
So, I'm going to be more conservative in such situations, which isn't the outcome the interviewer expects.
I much prefer situational questions, perhaps based on my prior experience. For example, maybe something like:
> Give an example where your input changed the direction your team went on a project. Or alternatively, describe an instance where a team member changed your mind and lead to an improved end result. Ideally, this should be an instance where existing processes were ignored and ended in a better result.
I think that gets at the heart of what the interviewer is looking for. If the candidate can at least recognize when a better solution presents itself, they're likely capable of thinking outside the box. Discussing the situation can help shed more light on it.
[+] [-] abbadadda|6 years ago|reply
> One learns quickly in life that it is never fun to be unpopular. Everyone has felt it at some point in their life. Most people never want to feel it again and so they go against the grain.
Why would most people go against the grain if they never wanted to feel unpopular again?
[+] [-] timkam|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillysaurusx|6 years ago|reply
I think this is the spot where your logic stopped working.
The idea is that you don't care whether they agree. You'll listen to opposing arguments, of course, but the goal isn't to get them to agree. They're asking you because they're interested.
Or at least, that's how it should work. It stops working when it becomes an interview question.
The point is to see whether someone thinks originally. If you have opinions you're reluctant to share among peers without wording it carefully, and you've spent a lot of time thinking very carefully about the topic, then there's a pretty good chance you're an interesting person to know.
EDIT: Another way to phrase it: If you give an answer that you truly believe and that you've thought carefully about for a long time, and they disagree loudly and immediately, then there are two possibilities: Either they have given the topic more thought than you (which is entirely possible), or they are less open-minded than they think they are. Both outcomes give useful information to you.
[+] [-] Cpoll|6 years ago|reply
That's why it's important to have a criteria ahead of time.
If I were asking the question, I would look/ask for: * A non-trivial heretical view (think OO/FP, unit testing, etc., not some obscure language operator) * A set of arguments to justify the heretical belief * A set of objections to their heretical belief * Counter-arguments to those objections * Evidence-based and logical reasoning to the above * Openness to counter-argument, willingness to debate the issue
I don't think it's a very good question to surprise someone with.
[+] [-] CapmCrackaWaka|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willberman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] khendron|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] empath75|6 years ago|reply
To the extent that it ‘works’ it’s probably going to screen for self-important assholes. Which, given that it’s a peter Thiel question...
[+] [-] Caligula|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkilgore|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twelve40|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aazaa|6 years ago|reply
This is a better question to ask oneself with an open mind that to pose to a job candidate.
No heretic is an island. The heretical idea stands in opposition to some convention or norm. Unless the interviewer is intimately familiar with the norm (and self-aware enough to know the difference between convention and heresy), s/he won't be capable of judging whether the response is indeed heretical.
When asked to oneself, the question forces exploration of the idea itself and the norms you believe you stand in opposition to. You might even need to ask around to gauge how heretical your view really is. Maybe you'll give a talk or write an essay - or just post a response in a discussion thread in HN.
However you explore the question, the answer might be surprising. At least I've been sometimes very surprised by ideas I thought were very odd not getting the reaction I thought they would.