He didn't really create a false dichotomy. Of course there's a big overlap between nice people (without quotation marks) and "good" people (his take). In the OP he created two models of people, which he labelled "good" and "nice". The characteristics of "nice" are, to the outside observer, socially apt and likeable. "Good" people fall into this category too, and so do people that lack the "good" qualities. To simplify things he simply talked about a "nice" person that was nice in your sense but lacked the qualities of being "good". Obviously they share characteristics, but the point was that he has developed a way of hiring, which I personally thought quite interesting (that it worked/works), of figuring out whether a nice person was also "good" or was he/she just "nice".
Admittedly it's a weird, awkward, maybe even creepy job posting, but that doesn't mean it's just bullshit. His methods will probably fail in a larger workplace context but he never claimed that they would the contrary anyway.
He didn't really create a false dichotomy. Of course there's a big overlap between nice people (without quotation marks) and "good" people (his take). In the OP he created two models of people, which he labelled "good" and "nice". The characteristics of "nice" are, to the outside observer, socially apt and likeable. "Good" people fall into this category too, and so do people that lack the "good" qualities. To simplify things he simply talked about a "nice" person that was nice in your sense but lacked the qualities of being "good". Obviously they share characteristics, but the point was that he has developed a way of hiring, which I personally thought quite interesting (that it worked/works), of figuring out whether a nice person was also "good" or was he/she just "nice".
Admittedly it's a weird, awkward, maybe even creepy job posting, but that doesn't mean it's just bullshit. His methods will probably fail in a larger workplace context but he never claimed that they would the contrary anyway.