We hire based on potential. An older example: at Matasano, we built one of the industry's few crypto consulting practices --- it hosts Thomas Pornin now! --- off a team of people who had, prior to Matasano, never worked on any cryptography at all. Empirical hiring processes don't preclude aptitude assessment; in fact, I think they make it substantially easier, by creating measurable objective facts that you can rely on to take "flyers" on people whose resumes and interviewing skills don't do their talent justice.
If you want to hire based on "intelligence" (ick), create an assessment rubric that surfaces the kind of intelligence you're looking for. Don't rely on face-to-face meetings to do that; it doesn't work.
Did you hire on any sort of "personality fit" at all? I.e. would you hire a technically brilliant asshole?
Personally, I really try to be objective, ask the same questions every time, etc.. but lately I realized that if you're going to be spending 40+ hours per week with a person, it's not just the matter of them getting their job done...you also need to be able to work together, and that does require some amount of congruency in personality styles
There are lots of non-technical reasons we wouldn't hire someone, but they're straightforward enough that we can list them up front before meeting a candidate, and they're mostly objective.
This is so refreshing to read! I was smh while reading the whole thread, got to your comment and was reminded there is some sanity left in the world after all.
If you want to hire based on "intelligence" (ick), create an assessment rubric that surfaces the kind of intelligence you're looking for. Don't rely on face-to-face meetings to do that; it doesn't work.