The 37% is a great reference for math nerds! It’s ⅟𝑒, the number of candidates one should sample before waiting for a better one to maximize the chances of picking the best one in a pick-or-pass scenario. See Secretary problem on Wikipedia
The Internet is so fucking weird sometimes. I had literally never heard of the 37% / Secretary Problem until this morning when someone else commented about it in a different thread. Then I immediately noticed it in this comic and saw your comment.
It’s like when you never notice a car until you buy one and then see that same car everywhere.
Or maybe the person who mentioned the 37% / secretary problem on the other thread had recently read this post here which is what reminded them of it, so they mentioned it there, then you saw both!
Exactly, it is just taken into account in their evaluation. A person respecting consent will just reevaluate that relationship opportunity as 0 and move on to the next candidate or stay alone.
I think it does. For it to work, you’d need to be trying to find the first candidate in the 63% who would choose you back who is better than the best candidate in the 37% who would choose you back. If you can’t verify that last part then it won’t work I think.
The 37% is a great reference for math nerds! It’s ⅟𝑒, the number of candidates one should sample before waiting for a better one to maximize the chances of picking the best one in a pick-or-pass scenario. See Secretary problem on Wikipedia
The Internet is so fucking weird sometimes. I had literally never heard of the 37% / Secretary Problem until this morning when someone else commented about it in a different thread. Then I immediately noticed it in this comic and saw your comment.
It’s like when you never notice a car until you buy one and then see that same car everywhere.
It is our mind that’s weird. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
Dammit. Now I’m gonna be noticing shit about Frequency Illusion for the next few weeks.
Or maybe the person who mentioned the 37% / secretary problem on the other thread had recently read this post here which is what reminded them of it, so they mentioned it there, then you saw both!
I completely missed that, nice catch 😄
I came here to say this as well! Ofc it’s severely undercounting when you consider the problem where the candidate must choose you back. So lucky him!
I don’t think the 1/e strategy changes just because candidates have a chance of rejecting you.
Exactly, it is just taken into account in their evaluation. A person respecting consent will just reevaluate that relationship opportunity as 0 and move on to the next candidate or stay alone.
I think it does. For it to work, you’d need to be trying to find the first candidate in the 63% who would choose you back who is better than the best candidate in the 37% who would choose you back. If you can’t verify that last part then it won’t work I think.
uh, what does interviewing just south of 200 candidates suggest?
i am trying to hire a competent ceiling fan installatrix
Coincidentally, 37 is the funniest number.
37 again?!