[gwbas1c]

> And if people cared at all about interviewees they’d give some semblance of honest feedback rather than “no thanks.”

A former Apple architect once gave me "honest feedback" about the languages I work with. It was his opinion about industry direction, that 8 years later, was 100% wrong. (Although I don't think I was a good match for his startup.)

That's why I consider honest feedback flame bait.

[danaris]

If you get a piece of feedback from one person, you know what you would need to do differently to get hired by that person.

If you get similar pieces of feedback from 3 people, you now likely know what you need to do differently to get hired, period.

It’s not about getting specific, individual pieces of feedback. It’s about being able to triangulate toward what you need to do differently.

And maybe you get 3 pieces of feedback that are all completely contradictory. That tells you that what you need to do is keep trying.

[zeroonetwothree]

That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is.

[gunshai]

>That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is.

This is a non-helpful statement. Humans are bias machines. We function based on our collective experience or in some cases differed experience. Saying there is systemic bias doesn't really add anything other than saying exploit what ever bias you can find to your advantage.

[mewpmewp2]

And receiving that feedback helps you realize if there is any bias and adapt accordingly.

[lxglv]

Sure, there may be, and you will have proofs that it exists and may find a way, how to handle it.

[mewpmewp2]

You take the advice with grain of salt. Still better than receiving no feedback. I don't think it is productive to think of it as flame bait.

[gwbas1c]

> Still better than receiving no feedback

If he had said, "I need someone with more experience in language XXX," it would have been 100% true for his case, and 100% appropriate for me. I can read the market for technology.

Instead, he basically said, "you have a lot of experience in language YYY, which isn't going anywhere." That was quite subjective, as language YYY has significantly more use and investment since our conversation.

It also isn't really appropriate, because the job was in language XXX, not language YYY. Assuming he hired me, we'd have to agree that my learning curve in language XXX was appropriate for his needs in a developer. (He clearly needed someone who could hop in without much of a learning curve.)

(Remember, sometimes you hire the candidate and expect them to learn the stack on the job, other times you hire someone because they are already an expert in the stack.)

Debates on languages like this are really just pissing matches. IMO, dressing up the debate as "constructive feedback on my merit as a candidate" hurt his credibility in his leadership role.