Don’t hire the smartest job candidate | Tyler Cowen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- Economist Tyler Cowen explains why you should not hire the smartest job candidate. Here’s what to look for instead.
Subscribe to Big Think on RUclips ► / @bigthink
Up next, Only high performers pass this kind of job interview ► • Only high performers p...
What do Aretha Franklin, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, and Stevie Ray Vaughan have in common? In addition to being phenomenal 20th-century musicians, all were scouted or had their careers furthered by the American record producer John Hammond.
Finding talent is a talent in itself. And to the author and economics professor Tyler Cowen, it is a talent that gets neglected in many companies, whether due to biases, boring hiring practices, or a failure to think outside the box.
As Cowen explains in this Big Think video, the way to go about finding exceptional talent is by searching the areas where the rest of the market is not looking.
0:00 The talent problem
0:58 John Hammond: A legendary talent scout
2:06 The intelligence bias
3:37 Discover undervalued talents
5:56 The FOMO mentality: Learning from venture capitalists
Read the video transcript ► bigthink.com/series/the-big-t...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Tyler Cowen:
Tyler is the Holbert L. Harris Chair of Economics at George Mason University and serves as chairman and general director of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He is co-author of the popular economics blog Marginal Revolution and co-founder of the online educational platform Marginal Revolution University.
Tyler also writes a column for Bloomberg View, and he has contributed to The Wall Street Journal and Money. In 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek profiled Tyler as “America’s Hottest Economist” after his e-book, The Great Stagnation, appeared twice on The New York Times e-book bestseller list.
He graduated from George Mason University with a bachelor's degree in economics and earned a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. He also runs a podcast series called Conversations with Tyler. His latest book Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives and Winners Around the World is co-authored with venture capitalist Daniel Gross.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more of our stories on cultivating a team:
Critical thinking training: 5 key lessons for employees
► bigthink.com/plus/critical-th...
Is innovation training the key to transforming your organization?
► bigthink.com/plus/innovation-...
Executive coaching: 5 things you need to know
► bigthink.com/plus/executive-c...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century.
► Big Think+
Make your business smarter, faster: bigthink.com/plus/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want more Big Think?
► Daily editorial features: bigthink.com/popular/
► Get the best of Big Think right to your inbox: bigthink.com/st/newsletter
► Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook
► Instagram: bigth.ink/Instagram
► Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
My latest job really taught me this. The interview was so cut and dry and I ended up being "the smartest person" on my crew. I came to observe though that I just had a knack for being curious, listening, and patient communication. When I applied to my most recent job and went through the interview process, I was finally able to be myself through two panel interview because I already knew my strengths and weaknesses ahead of time and it was more of a "get to know you". After 14 years of work, it was the first interview where I actually enjoyed the process and felt like I could fit in there.
Curiosity is underrated.
Imagination is trivialized.
Video synopsis: "Inteligence is overated"
Video series slogan: "Get smarter, faster"
I mean to be fair, Mr. Cowen didn't say "work hard to be stupid!" Intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, and cleverness are more like a "value add" rather than a solution to life.
Curiosity is underrated.
Yeah it's like most people rather live in ignorance where it's comfortable and predictable..feels safer. Curiosity can open up doors a lot of us probably aren't ready for and we use humor, dismissiveness, ignorance..etc, as a defense mechanism to avoid those curious moments.
@@rand_-mk5lb It’s hard to be open when you’ve had trauma & haven’t properly processed it correctly. We need more correct mental health/health support in this country before anything else. We’re too focused on profits, capital gains, etc. I feel like a recession needs to happen or some sort of reset so we find value in ourselves more than money.
@@jema5039 I agree with what you're saying. Trauma has definitely numbed the masses (buy this, look like this, consume this, watch this, wear this, etc.). Our importance has been put into concepts that don't really exist in nature..such as money. The government literally can say money has no value anymore and a lot of us would lose our minds..but why? Systematic control...I believe we have to stop being slaves to this economic system and find out what true joy is.
The government has fed us lies for a long time..love, creativity, imagination, expression, curiosity, and wonder..are some of the driving forces that can knock down this drone-like society that we're living in..yes I believe that includes mental health..but mental health can be as simple as going to a waterfall..walking outside on a trail.. meditation..etc.
This is probably one of the best comment threads I’ve read anywhere on RUclips. Why? Because each of you is open minded and so understanding of each other’s opinions! I couldn’t agree more with each of you! 🤎
@@jema5039 that's what a socialist would say. Principles are good as long as they stay as principles
As a computer-scientist who has worked as a software-engineer for over 10 years, I have to say that the value that very intelligent software-developers bring is immeasurable. If someone is more intelligent they see problems faster, outline these problems better, solve problems faster and most importantly their solutions are better. Of course it is not the only factor, but everything being equal that is what I have observed in my field, and interestingly I have not seen any limit to this. Depends on what you are creating I suppose.
How were you measuring intelligence? If you're simply equating intelligence with problem solving skills, I think you maybe be missing the point.
@@jose-lael IQ
Edit: Remember, I said everything being equal.
It depends. I've met intelligent developers who were assholes. They couldn't work well with other people including colleagues and managers because they felt they were smarter than everyone else. Their inability to work well with others hindered their ability to perform. It takes a lot more than just being intelligent to deliver results. Most jobs require cooperation and team work, someone who is less intelligent but can work well with others is in most cases more valuable than someone who is intelligent and has no social skills
@@viktorkay290 This definition would be too broad to be effectively measured in a software engineering interview.
That's obviously going to be a field that values problem-solving more than average. I think the idea of what he is saying is intelligence is overvalued as a trait in the work force as a whole, and not that it isn't critical in certain fields.
Excellent video. I think the mini me is a huge factor in hiring. Also, some hiring managers have a fear of being one upped by a superior subordinate. There are a lot of reasons for missing out on candidates and Tyler covers a lot of it. Even outside a business case of utilizing people to their greatest extent is how it serves humanity. We might be way ahead of where we are now technologically and socially. Unfortunately, I think some of this traces to who is normally attracted to leadership/money/power. Usually folks that have higher than average narcissism, lower or even no empathy, low boundaries/high risk tolerance and also high tolerance for punishment for crossing lines. Dark Triad covers this well. If we can change who we pick for leaders or at least raise and reward leadership that is more pro-social, we'll have a much better society and maybe move closer to achieving what Tyler envisions. What has served us in evolution has become a twisted caricature that is holding us back.
Honestly, if I could say, I would say that curiosity is one of the best skills u should look in someone. Because if someone is curious enough, they are gonna make questions and they are not gonna stop until they find the answers. You perfect the skill of curiosity when u start making urself the right questions.
I ask most of my friends some simple questions yet very difficult to answer, like "how do you know a meter is really a meter and how do you know a second is truly a second?"
This triggers questions which lead you to a whole other world, we were thought to just take information and accept it, but never to truly understand it
I'm retired now. In my 41 years of being a professional, my biggest struggle was overcoming management's (HR particularly) over-reliance on experience and personality. There were too many instances where the company hired a "pleasant person' who simply couldn't or wouldn't do the job. There were too many occurrences where the corporation hired someone with years of experience over someone who could bring new ideas or processes. In my own career I was often labeled as being rude, difficult-to-work-with, rule-breaker and so forth. There were quite a few triumphs where I convinced management to hire or promote "the right person for the job." Seeing someone I championed soar in their career/job is just so rewarding.
I hope that reward was in currency 😎
The obsession with "fit" is insane.
This should be pinned
I wish I had a manager like you. I’m being stopped from innovating from a suffocating company culture. It’s a comfortable job so motivation to stay is comfort
What advice would you give to a worker who is looking for an employer that won’t stifle them and discourage their ideas/creativity?
As a working professional in product development, I’ve found that it can be difficult to tell if the management interviewing me for a position are actually interested in my innovative spirit or just want a “yes man” that will tell middle management what they want to hear so they can lie to their board of directors that everything is great when it really isn’t.
I’ve found that bad management works very hard on presenting themselves as good management during the hiring process and then pulling off the mask when employment begins.
I’ve been part of an interviewing team for a few years, the only woman on it. For female candidates interviewed by men - it is often about the looks. And men often don’t even realise it! I’ve had several post interview discussions with my colleagues. They would start saying that candidate 1 is better than 2, and I’d tell them it’s just that she’s prettier. And once we start going over the details of the interviews with both candidates, they’d see it too, that number 1 is no more qualified objectively. And maybe even less! These biases are just there, hard to do anything about that. Perhaps more diverse hiring teams?
Put women to do the hiring. Apparently we guys are thinking about banging the candidate.
I've never hired anyone, but I can see this bias do exist.
Personaly I tend to think that pritier woman are less smart and prepared. Because a lot of times a lot of men offer and provide solutions and easy ways for a lot of problems such a woman would have, even if she does not ask for it, and a lot of times she does not ask for help but she knows she is gonna get help anyways just by talking about her problems in front of a guy who likes her, and she takes the help when the man offers it to her. Even at work, a team job is potentialy easier for a pretty woman because the men will try to impress her, help her in order to get to be liked by her, they will put up with more bullshit from her, etc. So it is my impression that as a result of all that a pretty woman developes less independent, less rogued, less trained to achieve good solutions all by herself alone. Hell, even an average woman could have benefits from her beauty if she is among men who have not so high standards. An ugly woman won't receive all those special treatments from men, at least not at the same level by far, so she has to develop smarter, wiser, more skillful, independent, etc. I rather hire an ugly woman.
Whoever denies the reality of the privilege that comes from being a beautiful woman is just blind.
@@juliocesarsalazargarcia6872 This is a bias that marginalizes pretty women.
Tried feeding the interview minutes into GPT4 and asked it which candidate is most qualified?
And at the end of this video a phrase "get smarter faster with the video...." is killing me 😂😂
They changed the title & its still funny lol
There are only very few people who have even the capacity to recognize talent. The most valuable skill is to make yourself look talented to people who have not the slightest idea what talent might be.
1. Drive and Determination
2. Energy Levels
3. How well do you work with others
4. Leadership skills
5. Charisma
They changed the title from
"Intelligence is overrated" to "Don't hire the smartest job candidate" a much more sensible & less a dumb clickbait title.
I liked the former for two reasons. Underrated is a nod to Tyler Cowen's game he plays with his podcast guests "overrated vs underrated" where he asks his guests about things and if they think these things are over or underrated. It's also literally what he thinks; that we rate intelligence too highly, when the marginal returns to intelligence is small beyond a surprisingly average level.
'our school systems aren't well designed for neurodiversity'
I fully agree. I found it mind numbing to be in the structure of one teacher 30 students where we spend more of our time listening to the teacher. It seemed so unlike the natural world.
For high school my grandma saved me. (My grandma was a teacher for most of her life). She said I should attend a Self Study School.
And that's what I did.
I attended a self study school where I had two teachers and two subjects a time (one for each teacher) and I would meet with each of them once a week for 30 minutes to learn what I should do.
Then I spent my time at home aiming for a B grade. A B grade was the sweet spot for me and allowed me to spend time doing other interests.
Every interview I had didn't go well, fortunately, I still got accepted. I just quit eventually because of the management, that makes sense why I got taken in the first place.
🙏
I'm not sure why Theranos was featured in the video overlay... seems like the video creator, intentionally or unintentionally, undermines the message.
The factors he listed besides intelligence just made me deflate. I have no leadership qualities or good social skills. I tried so hard to foster them but it never worked and in turn made become more and more depressed, which wrecked my energy, my passion, my curiosity. I can't lesrn new information because I forget it seconds after I read it. And I look around and realize I'm stuck in unstable entry level positions no matter how hard I try. I don't know if it's undiagnosed autism or just a personal failing but I just can't get the social things to click. And all my trying just ends up amounting to nothing because of it. I don't have anything to make up for it. Whenever I hear someone like Cowen speak, it just hits me how incapable I am.
The problem I have with this, is that, from the vantage point of the workforce, the “talent” in question has to be relevant to the job. My talents (Dance, Literature, French) are of no real use. I have been asked to proofread letters from time to time, but, I work in Accounting because, I know there’s money to be made there. It’s a skill rather than a talent. And, even then, it’d be wrong to dismiss someone of intelligence for “talent” if, the nature of the job requires it. In Finance, Capital Venture, etc. An intelligent person at the helm can mean all the difference towards the outcome. I find the treatment of this topic abysmal.
thats true. In the end it is about talent distribution, but that is what he is talking about. You may understood him wrong. You're right if you compare an intelligent guy that does the same activitiy as the average guy. If both put in the same effort, are equally interested in that topic and apply discipline and consistency to the same degree, the intelligent one will always excel. It also seems like that Mr. Cowen is saying, that 'talent' beats intelligence and that intelligence is not that important. But thats only true if that intelligence is not applied through the same effort compared to the hard-working 'talented' one. Another misconception is, that if someone is - lets say - talented in overcoming challenges or solving problems differently and thus has a direct value to the market or company, one must also admit that he can do due to being intelligent in that specific area.
@@zjaeger1800 In Response: As a matter of fact, I did understand the context in which he was discussing the matter but, thank you, for that elucidation. (There is no trace of sarcasm in that remark, just to clarify) However misleading the title may be, there were many instances wherein, a cogent argument was or could be said to have been made in his favor. I, for one, have actually made use in my French when helping Clients, in the past. So, if used practically, certain talents one possesses can prove useful in given situations. I just felt that the title and treatment of the subject matter could have been made more clear and concise in various points. That’s all.
6:10 isn't that person on the right a criminal?
Yes she is, theranos case.
3:33 I have little doubt that most companies don’t have the smart people doing the hiring. Im a machinist and large manufacturing companies for example have hr doing the hiring and i can say without a doubt that they are great at putting together teams of people that have a great time working together but can’t get much work or quality work done. All people over value what they are good at. People with low competency always over value things like charisma over competency because they want to believe that making friends at work is more important than making money for the company…
The City and County of San Francisco hires only relatives and spouses. The more insecure and corrupt the better.
Half of this video I strongly disagreed with. Where it REALLY misses the mark is neglecting to cover the factor of: Treat your employees better and pay them what they are worth / more equitably relative to the company's profits.
Socialism is the only way companies are going to be incentivized to do that.
I used to watch Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution videos on RUclips while in undergrad. It was the ONLY way I was able to pass microeconomics. Thank you, Mr. Cowen for doing the Lord's work!
4:46 Having a kind and agreeable personality often does matter in any situation in which you are regularly interacting with other people. I, for example, and a family physician and would struggle greatly if I did not have good listening skills and kind personality. That said if your and isolated radiologist or work a job that revolves around a computer without much interaction with others, agreeable personalities are less important.
Also culture matters. In places like Asia or the Middle East, relationship building and being reasonably agreeable are extremely important.
Our current education policy's are not the best at finding each individual's unique talent .
HR tends to hire people suitable to work in HR, that is people they would love to work with in - 4 they love working together.
Tyler Cowen is always impressive to me, such a great thinker. I highly recommend his podcasts!
Love this!
Nepotism and socialite weasels displace much of the potential talent in the entertainment industry, and I’m sure this applies to many other industries as well.
30+ years of experience in production here. You're spot on. Mostly, narcissistic personalities end up in positions of power. In accordance with expectations, they tend to hire equally megalomaniacal individuals whose appearance and "image" is shiny, pretty, and "available" or pleasant. There are THOUSANDS of examples. Amber Heard was one. Even that Theranos chick was another: they thrived off of flaunting image in lieu of substance.
I'm willing to bet that neither of those individuals have seen "Gone With the Wind", let alone learned even the first lesson the character of Scarlett O'Hara can teach readers/viewers. It is what it is.
Carl Sagan warned us with TDHW and Contact, but it's not as if society listens to the intelligent yet soft-spoken. Chump is a lot more aligned to the way people like to be: loud, brash, flashy, incorrect about everything whilst simultaneously "knowing it all", and loophole happy. 🙄 It is what it is.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat I’m a comedian and filmmaker (and have worked on WB and Netflix features) and yeah I’ve seen it too. Maniacs, narcissists, nepo kids. It’s pretty infuriating. But you’ve seen it all in that 30 years haha
I definitely feel being an introvert has been a disadvantage for me.
I think comparison with venture capital is very good, it's risky and so not everyone can afford to be venture capitalist. Same way not every company can afford to hire 100 underperforming people for a chance to get 1 super successful talent, so they stick to safer options.
The thing is that sort of people are very hard to find out. It is like knowing already which stock will rise up next year.
Finding a niche where traits are valued is the key component. Creativity combined with analytical moxie and intuitive grasp cannot be measured or even seen during an interview.
Wonderful detections
Thank You . . . 1 Eye . . .
I think I don't get hired because I look ok in the world. Interviewers tend to look for the desperate, needy, so they have a hold on you, or power hungry that they mistake by ambicious. If a person is just fine and knows the job, they have no string to pull from, so... They don't hire you.
Really? I've heard the opposite, that they don't really see desperation as a good sign, as if the person knows they're not good enough and have low chances of getting hired.
Honestly it depend on the type of company management, but seeing how capitalism work modern day i think this is mostly true for most companies
“The world should be more like VCs” is certainly a take
Amazing content as always. Keep up the good work,.
I am not so sure we should be worried about FOMO as it tends to lead to excesses, but rather the the joy of discovering the undiscovered.
It is in nature itself. Diversity is what drives humanity to survive and continue, and picking individuals that tick a very small box of criteria pretty much erases any possible chance of acquiring that diversity. Think of it as thinking outside the box, except everyone is thinking in the same space outside of the box. It's not the exact same thing of course, but nothing too different. But to advance we need to explore as much space as possible to learn everything we can.
As an autistic person, I am so happy to hear neurodivergent people mentioned as an advantage to the work force. We're humans too and we have our own ideas and voices to share, but that is often overlooked due to our disability. I hope more places begin to realise that we're just as important as anyone else, and can (and have throughout history) create a better world for everyone. We just require our *accommodations*.
I'm not buying the part about overvaluing intelligence.
There's many jobs where intelligence seems to me to be the best indicator of them performing a complex job well.
Misleading thumbnail, Intelligence is not overrated in fact intelligence makes one see the world in a brighter way compared to rest of the normal people.
Talent is overrated.
Skill is where it's at.
The former emphasizes on your innate ability,
the latter emphasizes on your learned ability.
People often equate Mozart to someone born with gifted musical talent.
However, if you dig a bit into his childhood, you'll quickly find out that that's not the case.
By the time Mozart hit the age of six or seven, he already received TONS of musical training from his father, who was a failed composer determined to make his name known through his children.
Even Mozart's perfect pitch was not an innate ability. If you train children before the age of six to correctly identify given notes, they will develop perfect pitch. This is because brain is HIGHLY adaptive (and remains to be very adaptive in adulthood, although not as adaptive as children) as a young children, so the brain develops a certain circuitry to be able to identify notes. This adaptiveness is what makes an expert, an expert.
Perhaps, it's the human brain's ability to adapt and evolve is the "talent".
I recommend people to read a book called "Peak" by K. Anders Ericsson for further understanding on this.
I used to work for big company, but only rewarded X
Now I'm mere a freelancer, but earn 4X
It's better not to work for any organization with HR department
Existence of HR department means its scale is already too big for any significant innovation to occur
Hence, one will get smaller rewards compared to his true market value
ADHD Person here. I've been fired many times, I dont mind, its usually because I told the truth too much. The 2 bosses i had who could handle employees that told painful truths said i was the best employee they ever had. To this day both want me to come back to work for them. Know your worth.
Thanks as someone still just trying to find my place on the labor market.
What does this even mean, talent is nonsense in how this person presents it. its nothing more then the square of time and experience. Ie; the more you do something, the better you become at it. No one is born with a skill, its hard work that does it. Venture capital is actually the WORST sector to compare to, because a lot of what they do is luck based.
There are numerous different "intelligences"/personality profiles. The problem is in finding the right balance of intelligences and personality for each job.
Now the question is what the hell is talent?
To me talent is what interests you, that specific activity that sparks your curious when you were a child be it music, oratory, nature, numbers, writing, reading, culture etc. Honing it makes you gifted
"A talented person" when I hear that I think of a person who is adept in a certain task. Without doing / practising that task prematurely. A task that most people fail to do.
i always understood it to be the untrained baseline/ rate of improvement for an individuals competency. for example if you were to have untrained people shoot at targets, the one with the highest accuracy would have the highest talent, though you could make a case for the one who improved the most over the experiment
It's quite interesting how professor Cowen puts emphasis on the abilities of "disabled" persons. If you think about it, in a strange way, it makes total sense that many "irregulars" would have more talent than others. As a fortunate side effect of their unfortunate stigmatization and incompatibility with today's educational system, ADHD or Autism affective people are more likely to focus their time into other areas and likely develop skills while the normal kids spend more time in social groups and social media. There are obviously some jobs where certain mental impairments would not mix well, but that is not to say that anyone in such a situation should be immediately labeled as unemployable.
I had also never heard of the phenomenon between employment and intelligence. If there is truly a "critical mass" of intelligence after which more intelligence is more or less superfluous, employers should be considering a whole lot more people for employment. If the difference between a 100 IQ candidate and a 130 IQ candidate is only a 5% increase in their productivity, there are dozens more 100 IQ candidates to pull from, some with much more desirable character traits and experiences for the job.
Nothing about the video implied autistic or adhd people are any better. Just that they're likely to be undervalued.
Well said, Tyler Cowen...
Could anybody let me know which type of music is being used in Big Think videos?
Where are the links to the studies that back this stance?
I wouldn’t say intelligence is overrated. Intelligence, by itself, is a very powerful tool in a system that doesn’t constrain it, and that can further help in making the human experience better. The problem is that access to the market and the means of production are controlled by unintelligent people who are actively undermining the economy, workers, and consumers that make that economy possible, in favor of capital holders, wealthy individuals, and corporations. Intelligence, at the end of the day, is just the amount of information that you have and how you use that information to apply it to your day-to-day life. You can be knowledgeable in one topic, but at the same time, if you have bias in your knowledge, that limits the accuracy and validity of the statement. At the end of the day if instead of profit motive we went for actualizing everyone's potential, with sharing insights and without the constrictions of capitalist burocracy. And true representative democracy instead of a group of shady shitbags financed by even shadier shitbags
Nowadays HR uses bot to screen resumes with keywords which is limiting😢 Before when I do hiring I talk to students that has vast interests , nowadays even in I T industry. It is important to have various areas of integration. One guy took a year off and travel around the world as a working chef, back to IT , will be a good fit to develop web content for food related or travel industry.
I love that you as a hiring interviewer have such an open mind. You see the value in diverse integrations & experiences. I share this view deeply & dare I say many of the greatest innovations of the last decade are cross disciplinary.
Speaking of bot screening in IT, how do you see a candidate who's capable of designing a resume to bypass these bot filters just to get to the interview and be upfront & honest about it once they ace technical rounds or during the interview?
Are there any strict legal or corporate policies regarding the accuracy of resumes?
Would you be understanding & helpful if the candidate is a great fit for the role?
On a side note, are you comfortable sharing which specific domain in IT are you most familiar with hiring? Company sizes & which country? How's the general scene and how common is your way of thinking about this?
These datapoints would be helpful imo.
Thanks in advance 😊
I adore Tyler Cowen
Id be a pretty bad interviewer. I dont believe I'm smart enough to know if you're good enough or not for the job. If you can become my buddy in the 5 minutes interview, you're hired though. I can friend most people in 2 sentences. I might not be their friend but they are mine if they reply a second time. Give love especially when they dont want it.
I'm sceptical but you seem like a nice guy. The world needs more positive loving people 👍😊.
Don't find the smartest job candidate, find the one that you can exploit the most
How can people who do the hiring estimate intelligence?
I don't feel like I learned anything about talent, except that it's important.
What talents? How should we evaluate people who think differently? How does one recognise talent?
Obviously depends on the situation. In the beginning he says his book is about identifying “energisers, creators and winners”
@@shefali567 very vague. 🙄
@@Vetal777 it didn't work.
@hansolowe19 In the video he cited "drive and determination, energy levels, how well you work with other people, leadership skills, charisma ..." , so I imagine that, and other non-cognitive skills, is what he's driving at. Yet that, in turn, asks the question: how do you recognise these traits in people? As he also points out, the traditional interview is not well-suited to this challenge. A solution is to hire people for a trial period, to see how things pan out, but I can see that there are practical problems associated with that.
@@tobymnewton exactly my point, how do you recognise it in people? Is that a skill you have or don't, "reading people"? Is it based on knowledge and experience? What kind of knowledge and experience?
If he knows this, why not share it here? Is this video just a sales pitch for his book? If that's the case I'd be more interested if he lifted the veil, instead of this vague hand waving.
I can only second three points he makes with interviews and candidate selection processes. There are just too many biases and cognitive dissonance at work.
FOMO is to be admired lol to see a fascinating idea so hobbled by the economic dogma
Misleading thumbnail, when he later talked about people with ADHD and autism he literally is implying that the people with ADHD but not autism, are the ones that should be hired for jobs because they are so smart.
Rather that should't skip on hiring them because of their grades, because their grades are likely to be poor reflections of their actual abilities.
The end quote struck me as a strongly negative mentality. "The world needs more 'fear of missing out'". I strongly disagree.
First here!
Amazing video🔥 just what i wanted to see
^ This guy gets it … 😎👍🏼
I was onboard with everything Prof Cowan said up until the last point about venture capitalists being the best at unearthing talent in unlikely places. Venture Capital is an industry that is 90% male and 70% white, where only 1.78% of 200 different VC firms’ total funding went to non-white or non-male founders. (Diversity VC report from 2022)
While I don’t think VCs or founders will or should be a perfect mirror of US demographics, this is fairly far from “unbiased.”
It's Moneyball for HR.
Mandatory question to answer before beginning this topic: What is intelligence?
I am the best climbing fish in the world, I hope there isn't so much mountain left till I reach the ocean and I still don't know if I am even made for salt water, but I know that I am so much better somewhere where I am not judged for and struggling with how hard climbing is for my flippers 🐡
This is 100% spot on!!
I haven't felt this appreciated by a video in a long time. thank you.
I believe that everyone has a specific intelligence and that it can be useful to everyone. I would like to see a day where the NeuroDiversity trait is no longer used. Every human being is NeuroDiverse, no one has a brain like the other, it's like height, weight, hair and eye color. We are all Diverse and NeuroDiverse!
agreed. oftentimes, the "smartest" job candidates are actually "neurodiverse," so the distinction he made there didn't do too much to drive his point.
WoW without talents intelligents are useless and without intelligents talents are unused...
*Imagination* IS trivialized.
If thou know, you know.
Don't hire the smartest job candidate. Hire your nephew!
You lost me at venture capital.. those folks go completely by their gut and prejudices.
Fantastic
6:08 Elizabeth Holmes...
Lol, I was rejected being overqualified 😅
Normalising disorder...loved the concept 😌❤️
Enough already. There is no recipe for intelligent thought. There is no single measurement we could invent to quantify human usefulness. A good CEO makes an awful scientist and vice versa. Intelligence is not overrated. It's just not a measure of talent overall.
tl;dr: "There is no point in learning every skill/knowledge available if you never use em."
Don't have any
Talent scouts do the greatest job
I think VC doesn’t simply hit it big, “hiring bias” (or vetting) happens too, as in successful founder turned VC partner biased against person with similar “something”.
Just watch Moneyball. Same concept, funner delivery.
Good video to cope with my dumbness
Forrest Gump is a fine example! 😉👍
Intelligence isn’t everything, BUT, it is the number one attribute for life success, including job performance.
If you want a successful company ignore this guy’s advice - also, I don’t get his point about autistics, many are highly intelligent.
Venture Capital? The place where people who only care about selling their company to the highest bidder and dont give a shit about what their company really does go to?
Our community just focuses only one thing, we hardly think differently __ that's the main reason a large number of talents are veiled.
"Education is overrated" [E.Musk ... whoever ]
In other words, hire folks who could be easily manipulated, abused, and overworked by psycho managers, HR, and deep-pocket corporations! Who would blindly sign the employer’s abusive/unethical/illegal arbitration/nda agreements- no question asked whatsoever! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👎🏻🖕🏻🤷🏻♂️
They want workers not bosses
For what types of jobs is neuroticism a benefit?
In my field as a scientist I see many very cooperative people with good communication skills and little experience promoted quickly. Now these are good people, and valuable too, but there is no original thought, and new concepts go arrested indefinitely. The "chain of command" between a field scientist, where all the data is gathered, and the research end, which gets the funding, is very long. The field scientists never get a call. Needed work gets substituted for out-of-date concepts because random deadlines cannot be met. No new ideas ever come to fruition. The body of science is shrinking.
Not to hire the most intelligent people makes no sense to me. If my ignorance makes me hirable, why would I work for you?
Intelligent employers hire someone who can fulfill their job requirements efficiently and productively for the paid income and give them credit for the job well done.
Miedo a perderse algo...
This also means that the way "intelligence" is measured is wrong or grossly incomplete! There is no correlation between good grades in school and overall success in life - which makes school grades actually useless.
I disagree. I don't think venture capital comes without it's biases. Research shows that there are groups of people that cannot get funding through venture capital even though they have proven product market fit and a well-defined business plan. I worked at a startup where the CEO didn't do his research, his idea was proven, so much that the market was already saturated with other players that came in and got acquired. He was however a white male, graduate of Stanford and HBS and was able to raise $2M without a real business model.
This is not to make it about race, because even white female founders have a more difficult time getting funding more than their white male counterparts.
I respectfully disagree with the notion that venture capital is without these types of biases. False.