Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Laszlo Bock

Overvaluing confidence, we’ve forgotten the power of humility

Information is Not knowledge

Jacob Burak is the founder of Alaxon, a digital magazine about culture, art and popular science, where he writes regularly. His latest book is How to Find a Black Cat in a Dark Room (2013).

If I only had a little humility, I’d be perfect,’ the media mogul Ted Turner supposedly said sometime in the 1990s, in a moment of narcissistic exuberance.

While Turner has been much humbler since, today’s breed of tech entrepreneurs often display a similar arrogance.

Why be humble? After all, Aristotle said: ‘All men by nature desire to know.’

Intellectual humility is a particular instance of humility, since you can be down-to-earth about most things and still ignore your mental limitations.

Intellectual humility means recognising that we don’t know everything – and what we do know, we shouldn’t use to our advantage. Instead, we should acknowledge that we’re probably biased in our belief about just how much we understand, and seek out the sources of wisdom that we lack. (keep experimenting about any thing that people conform with?)

The internet and digital media have created the impression of limitless knowledge at our fingertips.

But, by making us lazy, they have opened up a space that ignorance can fill.

On the Edge website, the psychologist Tania Lombrozo of the University of California explained how technology enhances our illusions of wisdom.

She argues that the way we access information about an issue is critical to our understanding – and the more easily we can recall an image, word or statement, the more likely we’ll think we’ve successfully learned it, and so refrain from effortful cognitive processing.

Logical puzzles presented in an unfriendly font, for example, can encourage someone to make extra effort to solve them. Yet this approach runs counter to the sleek designs of the apps and sites that populate our screens, where our brain processes information in a deceptively ‘smooth’ way.

What about all the commenting and conversations that happen online?

your capacity to learn from them depends on your attitudes to other people. Intellectually humble people don’t repress, hide or ignore their vulnerabilities, like so many trolls.

In fact, they see their weaknesses as sources of personal development, and use arguments as an opportunity to refine their views.

People who are humble by nature tend to be more open-minded and quicker to resolve disputes, since they recognise that their own opinions might not be valid.

The psychologist Carol Dweck at Stanford University in California has shown that if you believe intelligence can be developed through experience and hard work, you’re likely to make more of an effort to solve difficult problems, compared with those who think intelligence is hereditary and unchangeable.

Intellectual humility relies on the ability to prefer truth over social status. ( How can we ever replace the term Truth with an alternative term that has Not this abstract connotation?)

It is marked primarily by a commitment to seeking answers, and a willingness to accept new ideas – even if they contradict our views.

In listening to others, we run the risk of discovering that they know more than we do. But humble people see personal growth as a goal in itself, rather than as a means of moving up the social ladder. We miss out on a lot of available information if we focus only on ourselves and on our place in the world.

At the other end of the scale lies intellectual arrogance – the evil twin of overconfidence.

Such arrogance almost always stems from the egocentric bias – the tendency to overestimate our own virtue or importance, ignoring the role of chance or the influence of other people’s actions on our lives.

This is what makes us attribute success to ourselves and failure to circumstance. The egocentric bias makes sense, since our own personal experience is what we understand best. It becomes a problem when that experience is too thin to form a serious opinion, yet we still make do with it.

Studies have shown that people find it difficult to notice their own blind spots, even when they can identify them easily in others.

From an evolutionary perspective, intellectual arrogance can be seen as a way of achieving dominance through imposing one’s view on others.

Meanwhile, intellectual humility invests mental resources in discussion and working towards group consensus.

The Thrive Center for Human Development in California, which seeks to help young people turn into successful adults, is funding a series of major studies about intellectual humility.

Their hypothesis is that humility, curiosity and openness are key to a fulfilling life.

One of their papers proposes a scale for measuring humility by examining questions such as whether people are consistently humble or whether it depends on circumstances. Acknowledging that our opinions (and those of others) vary by circumstance is, in itself, a significant step towards reducing our exaggerated confidence that we are right.

In the realm of science, if necessity is the mother of invention, then humility is its father.  (Survival of the mother’s necessities are more important than that of the father?)

Scientists must be willing to abandon their theories in favour of new, more accurate explanations in order to keep up with constant innovation.

Many scientists who made important findings early on in their careers find themselves blocked by ego from making fresh breakthroughs.

In his fascinating blog, the philosopher W Jay Wood argues that intellectually humble scientists are more likely to acquire knowledge and insight than those lacking this virtue. Intellectual humility, he says, ‘changes scientists themselves in ways that allow them to direct their abilities and practices in more effective ways’.

Albert Einstein knew as much when he reportedly said that ‘information is not knowledge’.

Laszlo Bock, Google’s head of people operations, agrees. In an interview with The New York Times, he said that humility is one of the top attributes he looks for in candidates, (except in negotiation skills?) but that it can be hard to find among successful people, because they rarely experience failure.

Without humility, you are unable to learn,’ he notes. A little ironic, perhaps, for a company that has done more than any other to make information seem instant, seamless, and snackable.

Perhaps humility’s the sort of thing you can have only when you’re not aware of it.


Google HR Boss Laszlo Bock :  Why GPA And Most Interviews Are Useless

Google likely sees more data than any company on the planet. And that obsession carries through to hiring and management, where every decision and practice is endlessly studied and analyzed.

In an interview with The New York Times’ Adam Bryant, Google’s Senior Vice President of People Operations Laszlo Bock explains that some of the biggest stalwarts of the hiring and recruiting world, the interview, GPA, and test scores, aren’t nearly as important as people think.

Google doesn’t even ask for GPA or test scores from candidates anymore, unless someone’s a year or two out of school, because they don’t correlate at all with success at the company. Even for new grads, the correlation is slight, the company has found.

Bock has an excellent explanation about why those metrics don’t mean much.

Academic environments are artificial environments. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained, they’re conditioned to succeed in that environment,” he says.

While in school, people are trained to give specific answers, “it’s much more interesting to solve problems where there isn’t an obvious answer,” Bock says. “You want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer.”

As for interviews, many managers, recruiters, and HR staffers think they have a special ability to sniff out talent. They’re wrong.

“Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring,” Bock says. “We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship.”

Google also used to be famous for posing impossibly difficult and punishing brain teasers during interviews. Things like “If the probability of observing a car in 30 minutes on a highway is 0.95, what is the probability of observing a car in 10 minutes (assuming constant default probability)?”

Turns out those questions are”a complete waste of time,” according to Bock. “They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.”

The only thing that works are behavioral interviews, Bock says, where there’s a consistent set of questions that ask people what they did in specific situations.

Many of the assumptions and practices we have about hiring came about because we didn’t have anything better. For decades, the only (relatively) consistent data point among hires was GPA and test scores. It was an easy way to sort, and because that’s the way it was always done, people stuck with it.

We can do better now. And though Google has something of a head start and a lot more data, more and more companies are catching on. 

The best thing about data? It’s hard for people to contest. (If they believe the data is validated and unbiased)

Even when people don’t want to believe that they’re underperforming, it’s hard to dispute years worth of numbers. “For most people, just knowing that information causes them to change their conduct,”  Bock says.

Note: Best interview is to let new hires be challenged on specific problems: Hands on practise of the skills and attitudes they demonstrate 




October 2021

Blog Stats

  • 1,482,093 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 811 other followers

%d bloggers like this: