How To Hire a Hacker 370
itwbennett writes "If you want to hire a hacker, you need to take a more psychology-based approach to the entire interview process to determine whether he or she has changed their ways enough to be a trustworthy employee, says Mich Kabay in a recent Network World blog post. But this approach is also 'germane for highly skilled staffers, even those that don't come with arrest records or who have done something questionable in their pasts,' says David Strom. For example, in your next interview, ask a question that will suss out how much of a sense of entitlement a candidate has — or how much you or your company has. 'One time when I interviewed with Microsoft in Redmond I couldn't get over this sense of corporate entitlement — it was one of the biggest turn-offs that I had during my interviewing day there,' says Strom. 'I got the feeling that I wasn't going to fit in, no matter how smart I thought (or they thought) I was.'"
Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds more like "how to hire a self important misanthrope" to me.
Re:Sounds more like (Score:4, Funny)
In fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In fairness (Score:5, Interesting)
Wish I had mod points (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wish I had mod points (Score:5, Informative)
Because that is an interesting real world scenario to consider in this context. In fact, it would make for a good litmus test: would your hiring process stop the SF admin problem from occurring?
Particularly given that it's not at all clear that the admin was even the problem...
Re:Wish I had mod points (Score:4, Informative)
I'd like to think that a skilled interviewer could determine whether a person like that would make it in a given organization, but I just don't know. I do think that articles like this help in identifying factors that might help in deciding
(And who the hell modded you Troll?)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed it is, but the thread is filling up with people I wouldn't want to work with. I award myself half credit.
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling such people "misanthrope" is a bit harsh, I think.
Someone who is intelligent, competent, and has a difficult time finding acceptance (or even a modicum of comfort-with-others) in new environments could very easily get falsely labeled a misanthrope. If they're capable and know up from down, calling them self-important is a wee bit counter-productive - and I dare say, quite possibly why they'd be viewed as misanthropic.
A better characteristic descriptor would probably be "socially clueless". I know a lot of guys who come across harsh - myself included. They are usually some of the most open people I've known; they're also very amiable - but havent' a clue how to relate to others unlike themselves.
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
He's also often distressed by the stupidity of the people he works with. "Mate" I said, "Everybody you work with will be stupider than you. Get used to it."
I don't know if it helped much, but it's indicative. In a world of so-so thinkers, any bright sparks will have trouble fitting in. And it takes a fairly bright spark to be even a mediocre sysadmin, to be honest.
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
About 90% of people in the world *are* stupid.
It's not their fault. They have been mis-educated,
and are easily distracted. They really are clueless
more than stupid. And they don't care that they
don't know what is really going on.
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
About 90% of people in the world *are* stupid
You are under arrest for egregious misuse of statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a bit harsh. But I can say and prove with statistics that 50% of the people are stupider than average. :)
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for a few biologically retarded individuals, I've found that most people aren't stupid at all. Instead they're narrowly focussed in their intelligence.
So Jim Bob may not know Sartre from Sasquatch, but he intimately knows a Chevy big-block engine. Or how to skin and clean a deer with a broken Coke bottle. Or some damn thing. He's intelligent and capable within some narrow parameters, and he's happy when he stays within them.
It's the pervasive and rigid modern school system that divides people into "smart" and "stupid".
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also the difference between "intelligent" and "informed." There are plenty of otherwise intelligent people that ignorant on topics that they're asked to weigh in on. Ignorance is a bigger problem than lack of intelligence, I'd say. This dovetails nicely into your observation.
To see the effects of institutionalized ignorance, look at all the wasted intellectual effort of the Dark Ages. You have bright minds of the day debating over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, as opposed to advancing science and engineering. Imagine if all that effort had gone into developing the steam engine a few hundred years before James Watt got to it.
Re: (Score:3)
I could go scavenge a Heinlein quote a paragraph long, but you already know how it ends: specialization is for insects. Creativity is part of intelligence. Being stuck in a rut isn't intelligence, it's pathetic.
I don't care if I'm a genius or not, what I feel differentiates me and people like me from the masses of asses is that I want to learn new things. I like to think that Slashdot has a greater than average share of lifelong learners. I'll never be satisfied with what I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Team building exercises are a blight on co-operation. Getting a bunch of people who may have legitimate reason to
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually that's because most 'team building exercises' suck.
You want to build the most amazing team that ever graced your workplace? Send the three or four of them to Vegas or Miami or someplace that has TROUBLE for them to get into under the pretenses of a training class or a seminar, and only get them one car. That will insure they get in a ton of trouble together. When they get back, they will be tighter than any team you've ever seen, and they will get serious amounts of amazing work done. And the three or four of them will work so well together for the rest of their tenure - they will kick the snot out of any teams built over an afternoon playing blindfolded Monopoly and drinking non-alcoholic beverages or whatever the current fad in weak ass team building exercises is this season.
Disclaimer - trouble in moderation. I'm talking going to strip clubs and drifting the rental car around corners, not burying a dead hooker in the desert.
That said - a team that does the latter will be a LOT tighter than the team that does the former. Or so I've heard.
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I think your amazing team-building system would work best with extroverted dopey white guys aged 20 - 30 and see nothing wrong with TV. Mooks, basically. It assumes a non-diverse team, so by definition it's a weak way to build teams in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to bring on the dead hooker jokes.
Q: What do you do when a hooker OD's at your house?
A: Bury her in the back yard.
Q: What do you do about the dead hooker buried in the back yard?
A: Nothing. She's quiet, so she's obviously happy. Leave her alone.
Q: What's the difference between a Corvette and a dead hooker at your house?
A: Nothing. I don't have a Corvette.
Re: (Score:2)
"Team building exercises are a blight on co-operation."
Agreed. I always feel like the misanthrope when something like that comes along. The people I work with have never been anywhere, they've never done anything, they don't read anything (assuming they are actually literate), and they have no clue what's happening around them. But, we're all supposed to make nice and say sweet thing about each other, and be "understanding". Phhhht.
The less I know about most of them, the more I can pretend that I respec
Re:Sounds more like (Score:5, Informative)
Team building does simply not work out. You cannot build a team. It happens or it does not. It's just that simple.
If you really insist in "building" a team out of people who don't know jack each other, simple way: Grab them all for an afternoon, put them in a pub, sit down with them and get them drunk. Really drunk. Then have them talk. You'll have a team the next morning some of the times. And if not, you at least got a good hangover out of it on corporate pay.
Re:Sounds more like (Score:4, Informative)
Someone who is intelligent, competent, and has a difficult time finding acceptance (or even a modicum of comfort-with-others) in new environments could very easily get falsely labeled a misanthrope.
True, but.... far more often, they're just misanthropes *. You only have to look at the vitriol aimed at the "sheeple" that we see posted every day here to see that. It's possible to hate humankind in general while still liking specific people in your personal "circle", in the same way it's possible to be a racist while still having friends of another race.
If they're capable and know up from down, calling them self-important is a wee bit counter-productive - and I dare say, quite possibly why they'd be viewed as misanthropic.
It may be that they're viewed as misanthropic because of the scorn and disdain they heap onto others whom they don't view as being as smart as themselves -- which is usually 99.999% of the population.
Yes, there are a lot of people who are simply "socially clueless" as you've described. But there are also a lot of misanthropes in the IT/IS fields. A rose by any other name, etc...
*disclaimer: recovering misanthrope
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're just being jealous, to me. ^^
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like "how to hire a self important misanthrope" to me.
Where do I sign? :D
Had any scary interviews? (Score:5, Interesting)
Like a lot of big geeks on Slashdot, I take pride in always receiving a job offer after an interview... accept once. Once I interviewed with the EDIF reader group at Cadence, and the manager had exactly one technical question for me: "Do you understand recursion?" "Well... yes I do." "Well, then, you have all the skills that matter. What really counts is that you know how to fit in, and you don't impress me there."
I'm still shaken up over that interview.
Re:Had any scary interviews? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Had any scary interviews? (Score:4, Funny)
You inthenthitive clod!
I was hoping there was a joke in there (Score:5, Funny)
When you said that he asked, "Do you understand recursion?" I was hoping that you'd say, "Then after that, he asked, 'Do you understand recursion?' And I said yes. And then he asked . . . (wait for it) . . . 'Do you understand recursion?'"
I'm sorry. It just felt like a setup for a joke about recursion.
The joke was too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
The interviewee must answer: "Yes, but to fully understand it, you must first understand recursion"
Re:I was hoping there was a joke in there (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I was hoping there was a joke in there (Score:5, Funny)
A joke from google [google.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Had any scary interviews? (Score:5, Insightful)
In many (most?) business structures, expertise only gets us so far - after that, it's all about how we deal with people.
If you want to have a part in the problem-solving drama called "Your Employing Company," you have to get along well enough to be allowed at the table.
There's not much justice or fairness in this - just some hard reality along with enough exceptions to make the rule fuzzy.
I have an ironic recursion story (Score:5, Funny)
A coworker's boss once hired a "programmer" while my buddy was on vacation (avoiding the technical interview in the process.) The guy's first task was a simple program, but it always core dumped. He made no progress trying to get it fixed, so my friend held a code review. Each and every function looked like this:
Yes. He called main() at the bottom of each function. When asked about it, the "programmer" said 'that's so it'll return back to main.'
I think the biggest mistake we made was not firing that stupid manager on the spot. But I suppose if we fired managers based solely on incompetent decisions, ... well... you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Had any scary interviews? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still shaken up over that interview.
Don't be. Although one can often tell in the first five minutes of an interview if you want the geek or not (I'm being generous with the time here) that sort of perfunctory questioning and the glib dismissal you received most likely means they already someone else had in mind for the job, and are just following procedure at this point - often you're competing with an internal promotion or other reasons not related to technical competence.
Where you might need to improve is in believing your first impressions about a firm interviewing you. Hunches count, and your ability to drive the interview the way you want is a good indication of what level of person they're really after. I wasn't there, but my off-the-cuff opinion is that you were either bloody well jobbed, or the juxtaposition of the "Reader" group in the name and your choice of words (e.g. an "accept once" in your resume) was a deal killer. But they shouldn't have brought you in if that were the case.
Disclosure: I've interviewed about five hundred candidates for technical jobs. I've hired one hundred, of which two turned out to be poor choices. It's a serious, expensive business to bring the right people on board.
Re: (Score:2)
...they already someone else had in mind for the job
Gaah! Apologies the Yoda-speak for.
I need alcohol.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoa! That's an impressive guess as to how I spent my entire life based on one very small comment! It's pretty close! I drifted between jobs, rather than going out there and finding the hardest one, but did very well in most of them. I tried to start several companies, and eventually succeeded, though I had some good experience at startups first.
I'm guessing that to have that kind of insight, you're probably been around for a while... you're probably over 40.
On Personality (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In the writer's defense, there is a wide difference between malignant narcissism and most other personality disorders. Dealing with a true narcissist is a soul-killing experience. Many other personality disorders range from the ho-hum (adjustment disorders) to the downright funny (obsessive compulsive personality disorder).
Most personality disorders are fairly dealable. NPD is just a nightmare that never ends, short of someone one shooting the narcissist.
Re: (Score:2)
Many other personality disorders range from the ho-hum (adjustment disorders) to the downright funny (obsessive compulsive personality disorder).
It's only funny for the first couple minutes. Then it starts to get old, and then it starts to drive you insane.
Re:On Personality (Score:5, Informative)
"Another problem is that some criminal hackers may exhibit traits associated with clinical personality disorders such as the narcissistic personality disorder." I'd say a large amount of IT staff exhibit personality disorders. Not just 'hackers'.
It is a job requirement. If we got on well with other people, how would we spend enough time alone with computers to become experts?
Think this one needs a Part 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
How to Fire a Hacker
(Without getting pwned by her/him or his/her friends)
Because (let's face it), there's a chance you hired one on accident, without realizing it, and that they don't have an arrest record, for one reason or another.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because (let's face it), there's a chance you hired one on accident, without realizing it, and that they don't have an arrest record, for one reason or another.
Having no arrest record might be an excellent qualification for a hacker. Think about it.
Re:Think this one needs a Part 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
The folks in the first category could hurt you too. They're white/gray hat because they want to be, not because they have to be.
Interviews for the Entitiled... (Score:4, Funny)
I've found the best thing is to doze off during the interview, and when woken...ask for a raise.
Remember, no sleep and no coffee are your friends here...
-Chris
This article seems to be anti-hacker (Score:4, Informative)
I consider this blatant hacker discrimination morally reprehensible.
Is hacker culture so bad that anyone who identifies as a hacker needs to pass special scrutiny?
Isn't it a bit insulting to the hacker community to say they shouldn't be hired, unless they've "reformed", and imply they have arrest records, suggesting they are all criminals ?
Perhaps you mean cracker
Re:This article seems to be anti-hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you mean cracker
"If I was a real cracker, I'd want to be topped with a real cheese, maybe a strong stilton."
And I thought "hacker" actually meant someone who (literally) hacked on things. With a hatchet or similar. Or maybe language just changes, and we need to all get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This article seems to be anti-hacker (Score:4, Funny)
So hacker means blowhard?
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the mainstream media misuses tech words, does not mean that it is really correct.
The thing is, it's not a technical word. It's more of a social/identity word, and that consists just as much of people identifying you as it does of you identifying yourself. It's a case where "everybody does it" makes it correct.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the mainstream media is misusing the word 'hacker'. They've completely taken it from you, and the new definition is permanent as far as I can tell. Condolences.
It's a matter of context, I think - words have entirely different meanings in different contexts. For example, walk into an iron-ring School of Engineering seminar somewhere and identify yourself as a "Sales Engineer". You will be used in undergraduate packaging experiments.
Re:This article seems to be anti-hacker (Score:5, Funny)
And I thought "hacker" actually meant someone who (literally) hacked on things. With a hatchet or similar.
So more like Hans Reiser?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, the word can also mean a minister.
Yes.
Re:This article seems to be anti-hacker (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This article seems to be anti-hacker (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps you mean cracker
Cracker is a derogatory slang term for people originating in rural areas of the southern part of the US.
If you want to hire a cracker, just look for the baseball cap and check for a pickup truck with a gun rack-- or a John Deere tractor-- parked outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you mean cracker
Cracker is a derogatory slang term for people originating in rural areas of the southern part of the US.
If you want to hire a cracker, just look for the baseball cap and check for a pickup truck with a gun rack-- or a John Deere tractor-- parked outside.
...so what's "redneck" mean, then?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...so what's "redneck" mean, then?
"cracker" is racial/cultural (must be white)
"redneck" is socioeconomic/cultural (probably white)
The difference is subtle, and you should expect a large overlap between the groups. However, the key to proper use of such epithets is being as precise as possible.
Similar pairs include: "white trash" vs "trailer trash", "chink" vs "coolie", "kike" vs "shylock", and "WASP" vs "yuppie"
Why would you even want to hire a cracker? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice questionnaire (Score:2)
Even the stupidest hardened criminal can pretend remorse when it'll get him something... do hiring managers really think they're going to screen out the unrepentant with questions whose "right answers" are obvious. I mean, the few fools who suggest in an interview that the way to handle a bad supervisor is to break into his account and use it to download child porn are going to be pretty obvious in any case.
Not really (Score:2)
What you're talking about when exhibited by a person with a criminal record would be considered a psychopathic personality. Believe it or not, some personality types simply cannot fake their way through their disorder. And narcissists are among the weakest at faking neurotypical behavior. NPDs generally have a hard time grasping what is so wrong about their bad behavior, and often are flagrant in their gloating and celebration of every evil deed they ever did.
I have a relative who is a full-fledged malig
Simple plan: (Score:2, Offtopic)
1. Go to a big forest. ...
2. Follow the loud noises.
3.
4. HACKER!
How to... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How to... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a hard way to make a decent product. If Billy's app doesn't talk to Sue's service because the two never speak to one another or sit down to do a review, it doesn't matter how brilliant either of them is. Their shit still doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Communication among programmers is expensive. Brook's law. Sometimes it's necessary, but it's never cheap and it's always ugly time. Moral? Define the interfaces first, and make people write standalone tests for the inputs and outputs to their work first. Peer-review the code periodically to keep people honest, but otherwise leave good programmers the hell alone.
And get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
But requirements can be vague or just plain wrong, or incorrectly implemented. One of those pointless meetings is a really good way to shake those problems out before you have a bunch of useless code written.
Re:How to... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree. If this were true, then the foosball table in our kitchen wouldn't be busy all the time.
I think it's a subtler truth here. Many technical folks are more comfortable on working technical problems than people problems. Tech problems have at least one right answer that is unambiguous. People problems may not.
I think the way to keep tech people happy is to give them good problems to work on, serve as a diplomatic layer to insulate them from the annoying people surrounding them in the world, and facilitate making the rules clear on the floor to minimize conflict among the team. And provide free pop.
Easy (Score:2)
Just offer them a Miata, X-Men number 1, and a subscription to Playboy.
Re: (Score:2)
The catch 22 (Score:4, Funny)
---
When they outlaw computers only outlaws will be free.
from the kid-have-you-rehabilitated-yourself dept. (Score:2)
Love the Arlo Guthrie reference here :)
How to Hire a Hacker (Score:4, Insightful)
When it is safe to have a hacker on your IT staff
It is always safe to hire and employ a hacker. If they don't follow the hacker ethic [he.fi] they aren't a hacker. Maybe a cracker, hackivist, or script kiddie but not a hacker.
Falcon
Re:5 min (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Get him to show some work example. Almost everyone of us coders have done games, random programs or other code in the past and as our teenage years. Now if they are hacker like, it still doesn't mean he's a bad worked. Best in the IT have always had the hacker mind, something that goes beyond what everyone else does. But make sure he likes your workplace too and do basic security audit;
But whatever you do, keep in mind that there's no really an easy, computer security answer - if they're hackers, they will
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and nobody here yet?
You kidding? We've all gone off to update our resumes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If you can't beat 'em... (Score:4, Informative)
and the second [wikipedia.org] is even more interesting, including the rather apt statement: "Today, mainstream usage mostly refers to computer criminals, due to the mass media usage of the word since the 1980s", which of course follows a potted history of hacker culture in the 60's!
If you can't beat 'em... (Score:2, Funny)
...get a gun.
Re:If you can't beat 'em... (Score:5, Funny)
... arrange to have them beaten.
Re:What if you are hiring to be a hacker? (Score:4, Insightful)
And i wouldn't put it on my resume either : it's like a written statement of you admitting a crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more like you admitting you're a furry on the Something Awful site.
The proper definition of a hacker, a person who does interesting things with computers, is completely harmless.
Yet it too has been poisoned by negative connotations by propaganda to the point that only a fool makes it public knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Words mean things. Everyone has to agree what those things are. If your definition of a word doesn't match the rest of the world's definition, you have a problem, not the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Word.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surely Slashdot can get cracker vs hacker right (Score:4, Funny)
Welp, you can sit there and debate the meaning of the word inflammable, I'll be waiting in the parking lot for the fire department.
Re: (Score:2)
Welp, you can sit there and debate the meaning of the word inflammable, I'll be waiting in the parking lot for the fire department.
That was tremendously funny. Rest assured, I will steal that line and use it elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
In essence you are arguing that a words definition comes from common usage.
After listening to some of the tripe that comes out of teenagers mouths these days one would wonder if you could say that again with a straight face afterwards.
In regards to the term 'hacker' almost everyone who works in the industry to some extent knows the geeks version. Only those that don't have exposure get it incorrect, but most lay people don't understand trade-specific terms anyway. Does that mean that the people who study th
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You see, I was talking about words. Strings of sound that have an arbitrary meaning. You are talking about facts. Demonstrable pieces of information. It's like comparing your mother and a classy lady.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, please. Like many words in the English language, the word "hacker" has distinct meanings in distinct contexts, and you and everyone else here knew perfectly well which was intended in this case. The guy who looks around for an aquatic bird when someone says "duck!" might have a valid semantic point, but he still looks like an elitist fool when something smacks him upside the head.