Designing the new Mandarin tests part 3 of 3 (Owl convo)

Practical tests might be a little harder to administer. It’s one thing to watch a guy pull apart an engine over Zoom, it’s another to verify that a fringe electrical engineer’s hydro setup is actually putting out the amps he says it is.
Anyway, we should knock out a few of the easier ones first.
Architecture is easiest.
Like artists, it’s much faster to verify the aesthetics than to create them.
This could be done by having one trusted expert look at the portfolios of every single architect who applies.
“Yes, this person has artistic ability and skill.”
The math side could be done with a standardized test.
There may also have to be a way to measure the difficulty of the applications the person has done, to measure conscientiousness.
If a guy spends five years on one building and the difficulty was insanely high, that has to count for more than a guy who threw something competent together at the last second and went back to his cocaine bender.
Employers would certainly want to know which was which.
So, throw in another evaluator type: the project estimator. Probably this person is a trusted working architect.
We can call the first one a “critic”.
It’s largely a political appointment.
When you choose your critic, you choose the aesthetics you want boosted.
If we imagine that I’m the czar of metal, it’s going to trend to speed metal and metalcore over black metal, grindcore, hair metal, etc.

It occurs to me we already have an example selection process for scientists.
The IQ research community.
Basically, people collaborate with other people whose existing contributions they like.
I see no reason to mess with something that clearly works.

Right

The same process could be used for programmers.
Since software engineering is basically impossible to standardize (they’ve tried).

re: difficulty of projects, this is somehting that people get a good sense of after a few years in their ndustry
but a “qualified evaluator” could serve as a particualr sepcialization

[Editor’s afterthought: This observation is correct, but most people remain bad at estimation even if they get a feel for the relative “bigness” of projects because they tend to quote how long projects should take rather than how long such projects historically did take. Project estimation is a skill that requires practice and empirical feedback. That’s the long way of saying Owl is correct, this would have to be a sub-category of working architects who then sub-specialize in estimating. It’s like having one of those references that says how long an average auto mechanic should take to do a task, except using expert judgment in the absence of apples-to-apples data.]

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Designing the new Mandarin tests part 3 of 3 (Owl convo)

  1. Simply hire people who manage to master StarCraft and then have them learn the other, easier thing you want them to do.

  2. Hey y'all, watch this! says:

    In 1933, while overseeing the writing of Truppenführung, the manual for leading combined arms formations, Hammerstein-Equord made one of the most historically prescient observations on leadership. During the writing effort, he offered his personal view of officers, classifying them in a way only he could:

    “I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90% of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”

    https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/10/08/the-four-classes-of-military-officers-or-office-workers-clever-diligent-stupid-and-lazy/

    Different four-square analysis from your prior one for finding the bravo and alpha employees.

    Architects are currenlty barking up the wrong trees. They aren’t treating the structure for what it is; a human interface to the environment. I know only one home builder that actually looked at how people interact with the floor plan. But, even he ignores where the sun goes over the course of a year/day.

    • Hey y'all, watch this! says:

      The Ivy League is arguably sorting for the General Staff of Industry; the clever/industrious. Except, they are probably finding a lot of stupid immoral industrious types.
      There needs to be a test for the third axis. Honor Codes used to do this; but, they’ve been undermined.

      Regardless, you will not find a clever/lazy True Leader coming out of the Ivy system. Which is fine for large corp; they need bravos, not alphas.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        >There needs to be a test for the third axis. Honor Codes used to do this; but, they’ve been undermined.

        I disagree here. It’s impossible to devise a process for selecting leaders, they will be selected by the followers based on what the common denominator wants. Therefore what matters is maximizing the average moral character of the followers. There is no selection test for honesty other than nature itself, because if there were people would cheat on it.

        • Heh y'all, watch this! says:

          The moral test is not for leadership. It’s for technologist/staff officers; e.g. your mandarins.

          Diligence is observable; clever or stupid & evil is harder to discern.

          Regardless, “trust” is about the age-old principal-agent problem.

          This is the age of the internet; I can find more knowledge on an esoteric subject now in a few hours now; than I could get in the mid-80’s from a highly regarded coach and a professional library.

          What you are looking for is not a knowledge test but a moral test for agents.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            Eh? No I’m not, I’m explicitly looking for a competence test. I don’t want red-pilled medical enthusiasts, I want red-pilled medical professionals.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            Maybe a more concrete example will serve: I’m interested in ASE certified auto mechanics who are willing to compromise employee telemetrics devices. There are lots of talented amateur mechanics out there who don’t believe in this cyberpunk dystopia stuff, but the difference between a master ASE certified auto mechanic and a talented amateur is so profound that it doesn’t bear definition. It’s like thinking a highly talented, self-taught beer league hockey player has a shot at being contracted into the NHL Not in a million years will that happen. They just plain don’t have the time to put in the necessary level of training, it’s an all-encompassing, full-time lifestyle like training for the Olympics. And even if they had everything…you have to do film review with a high-end coach to be competitive. Which means you aren’t self-taught anymore.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      > They aren’t treating the structure for what it is; a human interface to the environment.

      The temple was made for man, not man for the temple.

  3. bicebicebice says:

    “[Editor’s afterthought: This observation is correct, but most people remain bad at estimation even if they get a feel for the relative “bigness” of projects because they tend to quote how long projects should take rather than how long such projects historically did take. Project estimation is a skill that requires practice and empirical feedback. That’s the long way of saying Owl is correct, this would have to be a sub-category of working architects who then sub-specialize in estimating. It’s like having one of those references that says how long an average auto mechanic should take to do a task, except using expert judgment in the absence of apples-to-apples data.]”

    https://store.steampowered.com/app/650670/Grimoire__Heralds_of_the_Winged_Exemplar_V2/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s