@DeepNeuralNetwork's banner p

DeepNeuralNetwork


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 02:48:43 UTC

				

User ID: 799

DeepNeuralNetwork


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 02:48:43 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 799

I never discussed how I, specifically, wasn't hired. I haven't even applied yet!

Most people with claimed 140 IQ are overestimating by 20 points. I know enough about psychometrics to know how to avoid that for myself. On their scale, I tend to tell them I'm 160 IQ, because that more efficiently communicates the level in their lingo.

I'm pretty much wiping the floor of fallacies in this thread, so I think I have a better grasp on empirics of the world than the median mottizen. As for what I want out of the world, well, I've gotten what's possible so far, I'm 95th %ile income for my age and have a happy, very young marriage, which is what I wanted instead of money. Now I want to be rich, and I think I will be in 5 years, given my intelligence and track record.

That is exactly what you would say if the AoC were 21 and I wanted to lower it to 18.

That would be gay. When it's a girl it's not called eromenos, just a wife.

A worldly comment which derails abstract discussion of hiring practices.

Most people serious overrate the psychometric ability of hiring managers. I've talked to quants and many are not that smart. They're probably 97th percentile strivers. I put myself around true 140 IQ.

You just committed the FOSC over a probably 2% improvement

The fallacy of sufficient competition is asserting that observed practices are optimal because you assume without evidence that the market is competitive enough to optimize itself, when the reality is often that people and firms are too finite to reach perfect optimization through competitive processes alone.

Honestly, though, to me it just sounds like you farmed good scores on easy tests and are very good at finding excuses for avoiding the hard ones that satisfy yourself.

We know how SAT translates to IQ, we don't know for math competitions, though I suspect the ceiling is in the 130s just the like the SAT and it's just ethnic chauvinism that leads to unsupported assertions to the contrary.

You're clearly not very good at hiring then. Maybe realistic from what I'm hearing although I think a lot of it here is jealousy and not genuine advice. I'll probably still get a good quant job because their hiring managers can't be that racist against white people and biased towards overrated brand name schools.

Look having been in your shoes of sparkling-good-but-not-elite academic accomplishment, being a mildly autistic egotistical white guy getting moderately discriminated against in hiring and academic admissions.

My academic accomplishment is elite, you're insulting my background because you subjectively prefer a couple of brand names. I am smarter than a lot of MIT students and my résumé clearly demonstrates it.

Replying to "life's unfair, but that's just the way it is" with "but it's unfair!" is called whining.

I never said that.

Do you suppose their hiring could be good but not perfect?

Relevant means that it boosts job performance. It's a disctinct concept from a desired hiring signal.

saying you are in the top 1% of brainpower out there is just going to make you come off as an arrogant jerk, so drop that line).

I don't have to say it directly if they're smart enough to understand test results. I'm beginning to think this whole quant thing is a DEI program for foreign swots, the way actual intelligence is belittled in exchange for inferior signals that are easier for foreign swots to get and game.

I doubt they get that many apps from the top percentile. Top percentile is probably top 25% or more at a quant firm.

How successful do you think a firm that only hires people between the 98th and 99th percentile would be?

Do you think hiring is the only factor in firm profitability?

It is not. What makes you think it's disingenuous?

It's silly to think the correlation between hiring competence and profit is 1. Or even over .70.

I need money to start a family and grad school isn't relevant to the job. I really don't believe my competitors are top 1% among HYPSM people on a valid measure. I think a competent firm would interview me based on my credential and my test scores and claimed knowledge. If they don't, they're probably some mixture of incompetent (they're bad at interpreting signals: they don't know what high test scores mean, and overweight brand name, which is really bad from a psychometric POV) or, to be honest, racist. Is it a coincidence these firms seem to value stereotypically Asian signals? Why don't they have killer quant firms in China if math competitions are such a good predictor of performance? Is it any different than only recruiting smart men who were pretty good at rugby or lacrosse? Why don't they do that instead? I mean, it certainly signals something.

You're putting words in the GP's mouth.

No, he insulted my pedigree by insinuating I don't have one. If you look up the definition of pedigree, it's an insult to blood. I'm sure he meant school but that's almost as bad, especially by repurposing that word.

They use ruthless high-pass filters before they begin to read resumes.

Ruthless or just incompetent? If test scores aren't a part of your "ruthless" filter, you're just doing DEI for striver kids at that point.

Pedigree, prestige, track record....call it what you want, they serve the purpose of bringing a 100k applications down to a digestible hundred that are worth looking at.

So they are just lazy and incompetent? Maybe I don't want to work with them then.

So a white Christian whose religion tells him that lending money and working with derivatives is a sin ?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A14-30&version=ESV

The paths are well defined. if #1 isn't for you, then do #2. If not #2, then idk what's left.

Is it really this bad? I can try to kind of do 2 but I'm not going to do anything I don't enjoy that isn't profitable. I kind of assumed a smaller form with some competent, legacy American hiring managers would be smart enough to interpret my résumé correctly.

It's not a risk, they're just incompetent at their hiring role and are committing illegal hiring discrimination at that point.

That is exactly what you would say if the AoC were 21 and I wanted to lower it to 18.

I don't just have a CS degree, I had a top 1% GPA which should already put my educational achievement on par with many HYPSM students. I also have several 99th percentile test scores, which even further separates me from the median at my university and puts me on par with HYPSM students.

So should his parents go to jail if they don't give him a curfew? What if his cougar lover takes a more leading role in his life instead of acting like an equal?