Seriously, what if you don't flinch when people question you?

[TZK]

So an interviewer asks you a question. You answer the question putting forth your reasoning regarding the situation. The interviewer tries to counter a point of yours that he thought was incorrect. With a completely straight face and without flinching in the least, you accurately explain why what you said already took that into account.

The interviewer looks unsettled. Not just because you were right after all, but because your facial expressions indicate that you were not even for a second afraid that what you said was wrong or at least that you were not afraid you would end up looking bad. From there the interview goes downhill. What have you done wrong?

If you try to be all "Oh yeah I could see where you could think that I do the same thing" it just makes them even more insulted especially if it happens more than once in the same conversation. When the reality contradicts the implication of such a statement, the perception of the statement is changed to match the reality and it is worse than if you were just straightforward. If you are right twice in a row saying "Simple mistake I do that all the time (implies on avg you have equal ability to gather information)" the second time they will get pissed because your statement is clearly not true.

Heres a few responses to the most persistent straw men which I will also put on the front page:

1) Contest to see who is smarter: Defending your claims in an interview is not turning it into a contest to see who is smarter. If an interviewer questions something you said, he is inviting you to defend what you said. If you didn't say anything, then he would label you incompetent. He probably expects you to graciously accept being wrong, but if he is the one who is actually wrong he will take out his "incompetence" on you because he thinks he can get away with it in the interview situation. This type of behavior is not in the best interest of the company. The point of raising awareness is to increase emotional maturity in the business environment.

2) I dunno but I have a job and I flinch: A) Your goal was to get a job at all costs B) You do not know enough that you would be likely to know things that the interviewer doesn't. Lack of knowledge is part of what makes it so that A) is true. You don't know enough to know the difference between right and wrong in all but the simplest situations. If you did, then you would subconsiously react the same way I did as opposed to subconsiously believing that the interviewer was a god in your current situation and everything he says must be right by default. (Which is exactly what makes the interviewer not like knowledgeable and confident people in comparison)

3) A lot of other arguments just boil down to "It's antisocial to be right more than other people" which is the real problem. This is not a problem with the person who is right more. It is a problem with other people who are emotionally immature. It is that fault that contributes to them being right less often in the first place. If you allow immature people to hide their motives by saying things like "He just rubbed me the wrong way" then you do so at the expense of the company and everyone else. You empower ignorance.

4) I did something else to make it worse. This is just refusing to accept the argument as given and speculating that something else must have happened. The person claiming this has no clue what my interviews are like and are just making things up because they refuse to accept that truly intelligent and straightforward people are treated with prejudice for illegitimate reasons. They WANT to be able to lash out at the guy who always has the right answer. They WANT to be able to attack anyone who is different or above average. What they want is communism and forced equality.

[Bob the Nob]

Didn't we already do this one?

[Baron Von Raschke]

Not anticipated the consequences of your actions.

[TZK]

The other thread just got full of @#$# and should be moved to the reef IMO. This is a little more direct too, which I am now able to do since I know how to avoid people misinterpreting what I am asking.

Originally Posted by Baron Von Raschke

Not anticipated the consequences of your actions.

This implies that I had some control over those actions. You can't control whether or not you flinch in a situation like that. It is just based on your past experiences/ success rate. This is also why people assign so much importance to it in terms of non verbal communication.

[remilard]

Originally Posted by TZK

So an interviewer asks you a question. You answer the question putting forth your reasoning regarding the situation. The interviewer tries to counter a point of yours that he thought was incorrect. With a completely straight face and without flinching in the least, you accurately explain why what you said already took that into account.

The interviewer looks unsettled. Not just because you were right after all, but because your facial expressions indicate that you were not even for a second afraid that what you said was wrong or at least that you were not afraid you would end up looking bad. From there the interview goes downhill. What have you done wrong?

If you are smarter than the interviewer, why don't you get his job and then hire yourself? Problem solved!

[Baron Von Raschke]

Originally Posted by TZK

This implies that I had some control over my actions. You can't control whether or not you flinch in a situation like that. It is just based on your past experiences/ success rate. This is also why people assign so much importance to it in terms of non verbal communication.

Acting in such a way that does not cause others discomfort is a learnable skill for most people. It is also an important part of working in a business environment. It really comes down to whether it is more important in your own mind to be "correct" or to achieve the desired outcome. Is the expectation for someone else to automatically change to conform to your point of view not fallacious?

[tommie frazier]

i think we posted too few words.

kidding. the lack of flinching either screams the person is wildly smart and therefor sure of him/herself, or just that the person is so confident that he might be arrogant. (the rest of the cv should tell me if the person could be the super smart type)

or me, the interviewer is dumb.

[DoctorNo]

Originally Posted by TZK

The other thread just got full of @#$# and should be moved to the reef IMO.

The other thread should have started in the reef.

[TZK]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Raschke

Acting in such a way that does not cause others discomfort is a learnable skill for most people. It is also an important part of working in a business environment. It really comes down to whether it is more important in your own mind to be "correct" or to achieve the desired outcome. Is the expectation for someone else to automatically change to conform to your point of view not fallacious?

When people talk about making others feel at ease, I don't think faking being less sure of yourself in the most non-consciously chosen sense is what they meant.

Not behaving poorly is definitely a good business skill. The question is, who is behaving poorly in this situation. Some psychologists say that it is hard to take criticism from or admit you are wrong to your children because in a superficial sense they are supposed to be dependent on you. Thus parents are prone to "behaving poorly" in these situations. If an interviewer doesn't want to hire me because I am smarter than I am "supposed" to be, who is behaving poorly?

The desired outcome being what? To get a job at all costs (even to the company hiring you)? Or to behave appropriately and to expect and encourage others to do the same?

The expectation for others to conform to TRUTH is not fallacious.

Originally Posted by tommie frazier

kidding. the lack of flinching either screams the person is wildly smart and therefor sure of him/herself, or just that the person is so confident that he might be arrogant. (the rest of the cv should tell me if the person could be the super smart type)

Question: Don't traditionally arrogant people know deep down that they are full of it and therefore do flinch more often and are obviously over compensating?

Originally Posted by TZK

This implies that I had some control over my actions. You can't control whether or not you flinch in a situation like that. It is just based on your past experiences/ success rate. This is also why people assign so much importance to it in terms of non verbal communication.

You don't have control over your own actions?