Post #3963046
2026-07-20 15:25 UTC
Many of our definitions of achievement are, once you start to look at them, massively tautological.
We hire the best people. How do we know? Because few people pass our interview loop. Why are they the best? Because they can pass our interview loop. And they do good here. Just a lot of post hoc.
Problem is, you will never see what you missed. False negatives are never measured.
Replies (1)
-
@grimalkina@mastodon.social 2026-07-20 15:29
That's not a real mental model for achievement and skill and aptitude. A real mental model says: what skills do I care about here and why? How do they connect to outcomes, as a process? Can I get a view into the process that's most driven by the individual? How can I design for people to demonstrate skills in their truest form? What assumptions am I making about proxies for skill? Where have I reduced the measurement noise of other factors (stress, barriers) that distort my ability to see that?