How to get a job when your smarter than the person interviewing you?

Originally Posted by TZK

Depends on your criteria for success. Plus, delivery is not really a question here. It is on the difference between an argument that sounds good, using fallacious reasoning, and an argument that sounds good because it is good (logically). Most people can't tell the difference immediately, but then when they go to apply the information they run into problems when it was just something someone came up with to sound good.

The success of an interview is highly dependant on delivery. On paper, my grades, exam success, etc were never impressive. I was mediocre, at best. But I knew that the minute I got an interview, the job was mine (and this proved to be true in every co-op round I went through).

I didn't walk into an interview trying to prove how smart I was and trying to create perfectly flawless logical answers - I walked in there ready to show them I was someone they would enjoy working with on a daily basis. They already knew my qualifications based on my resume - I was there to show them my personality.

[TZK]

Originally Posted by glassjaws

A person going on a rant about how superior their intellect is to any person who may be interviewing them shouldn't be making such careless mistakes. A typo is "you'er" or "your'e", I'd even give you "youre" as a typo. However, I fail to believe this is a typo.

If you're as intellectually superior to me as you claim to be, you'd see the humor in someone spouting off about how marvelously intelligent they are making an amature (yeah, I spelled it wrong on purpose) mistake.

Humor is reserved for people that respect each other. If I expected you to play fairly I would see the humor in it. My experience though is that certain people on this board will just make things up even if you didn't put a typo in your thread title. People here will lie, cheat, and steal to avoid admitting they are wrong about something.

Which you are doing by trying to say it wasn't a typo when it was...

[Merk]

Originally Posted by glassjaws

No, I've missed the wonder that is TZK psotings until now. But, I must say, my simple mind is amused.

Ditto.

[Qisoneminusp]

hahahaha!

this is brilliant!
your you're smrtr than a 5th grade interviewer.

[TZK]

Originally Posted by mexx

The success of an interview is highly dependant on delivery. On paper, my grades, exam success, etc were never impressive. I was mediocre, at best. But I knew that the minute I got an interview, the job was mine (and this proved to be true in every co-op round I went through).

I didn't walk into an interview trying to prove how smart I was and trying to create perfectly flawless logical answers - I walked in there ready to show them I was someone they would enjoy working with on a daily basis. They already knew my qualifications based on my resume - I was there to show them my personality.

We were talking about speeches there, not interviews.

But anyways... You are trying to label fundamental differences in identity conscious choices. I am not trying to show anything... I AM. You were appealing to their naive sense of fairness - Literally that you are just an average guy that they UNDERSTAND and can relate to.

All people have a moral obligation to not run their mouth about things they do not understand. Most people just don't realize that they don't understand nearly as much as they think. Most people bullshit and think they are making a good argument, whereas I know better. If they knew what was wrong with their arguments, they would do the same thing as me. I am happy for you that your success rate in interviews is high, but if you think compared to me this means you know something I don't you are wrong. It is more like ignorance is bliss.

This might get you pretty far in life, but know this. You will always be asking someone to give you something, and at the end of that giving chain will always be someone like me. Only system thinkers create things in this world.

[Merk]

Originally Posted by TZK

There seems to be different ways that people apply intelligence. Some people have high IQ's but are not what you would call "systems thinkers". They use their brainpower to learn how to "persuade" other people without really having a clear understanding of what they are talking about. That is, they don't really have a systematic understanding of the world around them or the people in it.

I find that whenever I deal with other people, these qualities that I have can not be hidden. It is not a matter of tact or anything so simple. Even just gaging the subconscious controlled factors of my demeanor causes people to recognize this. Interviewers expect candidates to be nervous to some degree and unsure of themselves as they are in a new situation. This does not mean that they will stutter or provide poor answers. It just means they might catch a bead of sweat, posture a certain way, or the person will respond to them in a certain way as if they are waiting for a cue from the interviewer to try and say the right thing. These are things that the interviewer may not even recognize consciously, but makes them feel a certain way when they pick them up out of the corner of their eye.

This no doubt provides some sort of comfort to them. I feel that when I interview with people that the interviewer is often intimidated. This seems to put them in defensive mode without me having done anything. It is like the interviewer questions their own self worth just looking at me. I know this would not be an issue with other systems thinkers or people with high self esteem, but such people seem to be limited to the highest positions in a company.

It would seem you could just talk someone into being comfortable with you if this were the case, but it doesn't work that way. People often hide what they think as if they are afraid they would look stupid if their belief was shown false. I once had a conversation with a lady interviewing me about giving speeches on actuarial findings. Every few seconds I would stop to think about how to put what I was saying so that it would be the most convincing and objective argument. She made a face as if she thought that needing to think about what you were saying was a poor quality for a speech giver to have. I said that I find speeches work the best when I write the speech and memorize it. She responded that she had to do the same thing as well and quickly moved on.

In order to form an argument that is both logical and convincing you must take time to form it. It is easy to form specious arguments that have no logical value at the drop of a hat, but this doesn't accomplish anything - someone could do the same for the opposing point of view. This is especially true if you are giving a speech on something important or discussing complex issues. It is easier to destroy understanding than it is to create it. I felt like I was having to bend over backwards to deduce what this lady might be thinking that would cause her to misinterpret my answers.

I find that interviewers have all kinds of backwards views on things that determine how they interpret behavior and arguments. They hide these beliefs to prevent you from disproving them so you can come to an understanding. This in of itself is a poorly reasoned type of behavior. Objective truth is only determined by the confrontation of ideas. If the interviewer naturally liked you, they might be more open minded (although they still would be judgmental based on some silly beliefs they were sensitive about)

However it seems being above average in any area that people didn't feel was a matter of choice causes people to not like you regardless of what you do. It is like your existence automatically challenges their sense of fairness and they consider you an enemy.

I luckily found a job through a family friend who was a high level, systems thinker in another company. If it wasn't for this person, I am not sure I would have ever found a job. Has anyone else faced these kinds of problems and what have you done to overcome them? I may need to move jobs soon (Department closing) which means interviewing all over again. I am not looking forward to it.

Your problem is that the interviewers are failing to understand the full light of your brilliance. You need to write them a proof of why you're smarter than all people in their company. Then you'll be in business.

[glassjaws]

Originally Posted by TZK

Humor is reserved for people that respect each other. If I expected you to play fairly I would see the humor in it. My experience though is that certain people on this board will just make things up even if you didn't put a typo in your thread title. People here will lie, cheat, and steal to avoid admitting they are wrong about something.

Which you are doing by trying to say it wasn't a typo when it was...

Show me where I'm wrong and that your thread title is correct. Please. If I'm "wrong" about it being a typo, it's because I don't believe you. In big-people world, sometimes not everyone believes what you say.

Originally Posted by TZK

We were talking about speeches there, not interviews.

But anyways... You are trying to label fundamental differences in identity conscious choices. I am not trying to show anything... I AM. You were appealing to their naive sense of fairness - Literally that you are just an average guy that they UNDERSTAND and can relate to.

All people have a moral obligation to not run their mouth about things they do not understand. Most people just don't realize that they don't understand nearly as much as they think. Most people bullshit and think they are making a good argument, whereas I know better. If they knew what was wrong with their arguments, they would do the same thing as me. I am happy for you that you are success rate in interviews is high, but if you think compared to me this means you know something I don't you are wrong. It is more like ignorance is bliss.

The bolded part certainly ain't true!!

As an aside .. I didn't claim to know something you didn't - in fact, I'm sure you (and lots of other people) are smarter than me. Smarts only gets you so far - if you cannot relate to others and adjust your behaviour to what is appropriate in that particular situation, you will not get very far in any field that involves interaction.

[campbell]

Originally Posted by TZK

Most people just don't realize that they don't understand nearly as much as they think.

This is very true.

You may want to think on that for a while.

[oirg]

Originally Posted by TZK

There seems to be different ways that people apply intelligence. Some people have high IQ's but are not what you would call "systems thinkers". They use their brainpower to learn how to "persuade" other people without really having a clear understanding of what they are talking about. That is, they don't really have a systematic understanding of the world around them or the people in it.

I find that whenever I deal with other people, these qualities that I have can not be hidden. It is not a matter of tact or anything so simple. Even just gaging the subconscious controlled factors of my demeanor causes people to recognize this. Interviewers expect candidates to be nervous to some degree and unsure of themselves as they are in a new situation. This does not mean that they will stutter or provide poor answers. It just means they might catch a bead of sweat, posture a certain way, or the person will respond to them in a certain way as if they are waiting for a cue from the interviewer to try and say the right thing. These are things that the interviewer may not even recognize consciously, but makes them feel a certain way when they pick them up out of the corner of their eye.

This no doubt provides some sort of comfort to them. I feel that when I interview with people that the interviewer is often intimidated. This seems to put them in defensive mode without me having done anything. It is like the interviewer questions their own self worth just looking at me. I know this would not be an issue with other systems thinkers or people with high self esteem, but such people seem to be limited to the highest positions in a company.

It would seem you could just talk someone into being comfortable with you if this were the case, but it doesn't work that way. People often hide what they think as if they are afraid they would look stupid if their belief was shown false. I once had a conversation with a lady interviewing me about giving speeches on actuarial findings. Every few seconds I would stop to think about how to put what I was saying so that it would be the most convincing and objective argument. She made a face as if she thought that needing to think about what you were saying was a poor quality for a speech giver to have. I said that I find speeches work the best when I write the speech and memorize it. She responded that she had to do the same thing as well and quickly moved on.

In order to form an argument that is both logical and convincing you must take time to form it. It is easy to form specious arguments that have no logical value at the drop of a hat, but this doesn't accomplish anything - someone could do the same for the opposing point of view. This is especially true if you are giving a speech on something important or discussing complex issues. It is easier to destroy understanding than it is to create it. I felt like I was having to bend over backwards to deduce what this lady might be thinking that would cause her to misinterpret my answers.

I find that interviewers have all kinds of backwards views on things that determine how they interpret behavior and arguments. They hide these beliefs to prevent you from disproving them so you can come to an understanding. This in of itself is a poorly reasoned type of behavior. Objective truth is only determined by the confrontation of ideas. If the interviewer naturally liked you, they might be more open minded (although they still would be judgmental based on some silly beliefs they were sensitive about)

However it seems being above average in any area that people didn't feel was a matter of choice causes people to not like you regardless of what you do. It is like your existence automatically challenges their sense of fairness and they consider you an enemy.

I luckily found a job through a family friend who was a high level, systems thinker in another company. If it wasn't for this person, I am not sure I would have ever found a job. Has anyone else faced these kinds of problems and what have you done to overcome them? I may need to move jobs soon (Department closing) which means interviewing all over again. I am not looking forward to it.

This post reminded me of Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory sitcom.