[adam_arthur]

I said the minimum threshold required to get hired is "~average talent and willingness to grind". This is a fact.

This statement says nothing about the average skill of a FAANG engineer. The bizarre extrapolation of statement A to fabricated statement B is quite astounding. Truly.

[Upgrayyed_U]

Not sure if it helps, but this is exactly how I read your earlier comment. I still don't quite understand the defensiveness coming from some of the responses.

[cscurmudgeon]

Do you go around giving IQ tests as soon as someone gets into FAANG?

Love how you keep reiterating something is a fact without zero evidence.

[adam_arthur]

If plenty of average talent people get hired at FAANG (they do, from a statistically reasonably sized sample). Then being above average talent is not a minimum requirement for joining FAANG.

The fact that is being considered a controversial statement is truly mind boggling to me.

[ablatt89]

That logic is not sound. If there's some selection criteria to select engineers from the general populace S, and a subset engineers who make it past S are average, that doesn't mea the end distribution of IQs (you're the one who brought up IQs) of FAANG engineers vs the distribution of IQs of the general SWE population would match in statistics. That is, large statistics don't just match because some subset of the populations match at some level. It's a clear misunderstanding of statistics and sloppy logic.

It's pretty absurd that you continue to think you're somehow making a logical argument and somehow think your IQ is above 120.

[adam_arthur]

The logic is sound.

> "The minimum threshold to get hired for FAANG is ~average talent and the willingness to grind"

> "Some average talent people work for FAANG"

> Thus, somebody who is average can get hired by FAANG

I said absolutely nothing about the skill distribution or histogram of talent across all of FAANG engineering.

Anybody who's worked in the Bay Area has known a number of untalented people who have joined FAANG. That's reality. Believe whatever you want.

That an untalented person can join FAANG does not say anything about the talent of the FAANG engineer on average.

An interview process threshold defines the left tail of the skill distributions of the hires, and tells you nothing about the shape of the distribution beyond that. Though you can likely assume it's normally distributed.

How many ways do I need to slice it for you?

[ablatt89]

You keep worming your way, distorting your initial statement. You initially stated the following:

> Though engineering at FAANG in general is overrated. Know plenty of underperforming people at my company that ended up there. All you needed in the past is ~average IQ and willingness to grind >

You have to be specific here, what do you mean "all you need"? Is this time to study algorithms? Because not everyone who studies algorithms, at the same rate, the same number of problems get an offer after an interview. Not only that, you're implying the interviews for other companies are exactly the same in regards to checking for IQ, which is completely laughable.

You simply assert that someone with average IQ that you know (and even underperformers) made it into FAANG, so you then broadly extrapolate, without evidence, that it means the selection criteria S for FAANG is simply a matter of if the person spends time studying and has an average IQ, and is no different than any under interviews.

Astounding.

[cscurmudgeon]

> The logic is sound.

Solid reasoning there.

> Anybody who's worked in the Bay Area has known a number of untalented people who have joined FAANG. That's reality. Believe whatever you want.

"Statistically and logically sound" lol

Nothing to see here works. Can't you see the obvious?

Edit: I too believe that FAANG engineers are not special but that belief is not proof of that statement.

[cscurmudgeon]

The fact that some folks think repeating something is enough to show that it is true is truly mind boggling to me.

> If plenty of average talent people get hired at FAANG (they do, from a statistically reasonably sized sample). Then being above average talent is not a minimum requirement for joining FAANG.

Where is the study or data on that? Just repeating things and sprinkling in terms "statistically reasonably sized sample" doesn't make it true. I know you want it to be true (and it may be true) but that is not evidence for that.

[joshuamorton]

While I don't entirely agree with your claim, the claim being responded to here is not what you said and opens with "Statistically, FAANG workers are not good engineers". So the reason people are replying to a statement that you didn't make is because someone else did.

[ablatt89]

Don't be pedantic, that was absolutely the intent of Arthur's post. Re-read it. He clearly insults FAAANG engineers as incompetent, then follows with FAANG engineers are just average in intelligence and grind. You're being dishonest if you think that's not meant as an insult.

[joshuamorton]

Perhaps, but I choose to read his first post as saying that the startup he works for isn't capable of giving some people a successful environment, which is often true. Broadly, I see no need to prove myself, if I choose to change employers I'll be fine.

The other thing, of course, is that small companies can afford to be extremely judicious in a way that G/M can't (for example the old thing where Netflix only hired staff-equivalents). But I ultimately agree with you (like I said!) that at that point you're basically saying Google and Microsoft contain the below average engineers only from the index of current-and-former faang employees, which is sort of trivially true.

As for grind, idk I think it's good that my coworkers are below average grind. I am too. Wlb is good. Grind is unhealthy.