the only people who wear a suit for an interview in tech are the people who don’t think they can cut it on their technical skills and the people hiring know this
I’d bet against this.
Socially clued-in people who have poor technical skills will understand that they should show up in a hoodie to not tank their chances. (Insofar as interviewers are actually selecting in the way you say.)
I bet there will be some brilliant programmers who are so socially clueless that they listens to their mom’s advice and foolishly show up in a suit. (Or immigrants from a country with very different norms in tech, also comes to mind as someone who could get this wrong.)
It’s still plausible that a hoodie is still overall bayesian evidence that someone is good at programming. But I think it’s weaker than you say. And I don’t think it just operates via confidence in technical skills. Eg I think you’re selecting at least as strongly for being very familiar with programmer culture. (Which is evidence of being a good programmer! But evidence of a very similar kind to the way a suit is evidence that someone will be a good lawyer.)
Like: It doesn’t sound like you were confident enough in your technical skills that you were like ” it doesn’t matter how I dress”, since you thought a suit would tank your chances. Sounds like you understood that it was very important how you dressed for the interview, and that you just knew what the dress code was.
John thinks he’s in the winners’ bracket (who don’t care about signalling), but he’s actually in the upper-losers’ bracket (who care about countersignalling).
Consider this part:
Occasionally people ask me if I’m going to the next one, and… I try to be polite. But my internal reaction is something like “oh god no, I absolutely cannot be seen at an EA global, that would be super cringe”. EA global, like many other effective altruism branded “networking events”, is (at least in my head) the losers’ bracket of the effective altruism job market.
The actual “winners’ bracket” of the EA job market aren’t thinking about whether it would be super cringe to be seen at EAG. They go if it’s worth their time and don’t if it isn’t. I don’t imagine this is a thought that Holden Karnofsky has ever had.
Separately: John has revealed himself as lower-upper-losers’ bracket, not even upper-upper-losers’ bracket. The upper-upper-losers’ bracket would go to EAG, as a counter-counter-signal that they are confident that everyone will assume they were there to recruit, not to find a job.
I worked in engineering at Google from 2007-2015. I conducted … I can’t remember, definitely more than 100, maybe something like 200 in-person onsite technical interviews. (In addition to loads of phone screens, but I couldn’t see those people.)
Not a single person wore a suit.
If anyone had, I would have been very surprised and I would have immediately started wondering what other memos that candidate had not received.
For anyone reading this: if you’re ever in a situation where you wore a suit when others are less formal, Do Not Panic.
Remove tie (if wearing tie) and place in inside jacket pocket. Remove jacket and place out of view. Unbutton top button of collar, if buttoned. Roll up sleeves. Sit in a way that pants aren’t visible, if possible.
Boom, you’re now down to something much less formal in under 30 seconds.
When I was at Google, I conducted a technical interview of an engineering candidate who wore a suit exactly once in my time there. I found it confusing and sus, but actually he was very good, and he did get the job. I guess he just didn’t get the memo. (And he was clearly a person who enjoyed dressing up, atypically for an engineer; he wasn’t just doing it for the sake of interviewing.)
Ok, so maybe both ”people who don’t think they can cut it on their technical skills [and so wear suits]” and socially oblivious people with suits are rare. And so the dominant signal would just be that the person is an outlier level of culturally out-of-touch.
(Though maybe suits start seeping in more at less prestigious and culturally iconic tech companies than google.)
I think the winning strategy is to dress exactly 1 level better than others. Too many levels signal that you are socially clueless. But exactly 1 level better signals that you are socially savvy.
Or some other kind of counter-counter-signal, for example dress formally but behave informally, etc. To show that you are dressed formally because it is your choice, not because you are scared.
I’d bet against this.
Socially clued-in people who have poor technical skills will understand that they should show up in a hoodie to not tank their chances. (Insofar as interviewers are actually selecting in the way you say.)
I bet there will be some brilliant programmers who are so socially clueless that they listens to their mom’s advice and foolishly show up in a suit. (Or immigrants from a country with very different norms in tech, also comes to mind as someone who could get this wrong.)
It’s still plausible that a hoodie is still overall bayesian evidence that someone is good at programming. But I think it’s weaker than you say. And I don’t think it just operates via confidence in technical skills. Eg I think you’re selecting at least as strongly for being very familiar with programmer culture. (Which is evidence of being a good programmer! But evidence of a very similar kind to the way a suit is evidence that someone will be a good lawyer.)
Like: It doesn’t sound like you were confident enough in your technical skills that you were like ” it doesn’t matter how I dress”, since you thought a suit would tank your chances. Sounds like you understood that it was very important how you dressed for the interview, and that you just knew what the dress code was.
John thinks he’s in the winners’ bracket (who don’t care about signalling), but he’s actually in the upper-losers’ bracket (who care about countersignalling).
Consider this part:
The actual “winners’ bracket” of the EA job market aren’t thinking about whether it would be super cringe to be seen at EAG. They go if it’s worth their time and don’t if it isn’t. I don’t imagine this is a thought that Holden Karnofsky has ever had.
Separately: John has revealed himself as lower-upper-losers’ bracket, not even upper-upper-losers’ bracket. The upper-upper-losers’ bracket would go to EAG, as a counter-counter-signal that they are confident that everyone will assume they were there to recruit, not to find a job.
I worked in engineering at Google from 2007-2015. I conducted … I can’t remember, definitely more than 100, maybe something like 200 in-person onsite technical interviews. (In addition to loads of phone screens, but I couldn’t see those people.)
Not a single person wore a suit.
If anyone had, I would have been very surprised and I would have immediately started wondering what other memos that candidate had not received.
For anyone reading this: if you’re ever in a situation where you wore a suit when others are less formal, Do Not Panic.
Remove tie (if wearing tie) and place in inside jacket pocket. Remove jacket and place out of view. Unbutton top button of collar, if buttoned. Roll up sleeves. Sit in a way that pants aren’t visible, if possible.
Boom, you’re now down to something much less formal in under 30 seconds.
When I was at Google, I conducted a technical interview of an engineering candidate who wore a suit exactly once in my time there. I found it confusing and sus, but actually he was very good, and he did get the job. I guess he just didn’t get the memo. (And he was clearly a person who enjoyed dressing up, atypically for an engineer; he wasn’t just doing it for the sake of interviewing.)
Yay, empirical data!
Ok, so maybe both ”people who don’t think they can cut it on their technical skills [and so wear suits]” and socially oblivious people with suits are rare. And so the dominant signal would just be that the person is an outlier level of culturally out-of-touch.
(Though maybe suits start seeping in more at less prestigious and culturally iconic tech companies than google.)
I think the winning strategy is to dress exactly 1 level better than others. Too many levels signal that you are socially clueless. But exactly 1 level better signals that you are socially savvy.
Or some other kind of counter-counter-signal, for example dress formally but behave informally, etc. To show that you are dressed formally because it is your choice, not because you are scared.