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

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?

1. You were incorrect when you thought you accurately explain why what you said already took that into account (i.e., the interviewer is right and you are wrong).

2. While attempting to do 1, your poor communications skills do not even allow you to explain yourself well.

3. While doing 2 (poorly) you appear condescending and antagonistic.

4. Your facial expressions make you appear condescending, antagonistic ... and cocky.

5. You are a big ol' burlap sac of douche (I say this not from evidence presented in this thread, but from that other thread).

6. You refuse to learn from 1-5 and instead come here to b---h and moan about how the interviewer is a moron.

Seriously, not getting the job has ZERO to do with flinching or not flinching.

Seriously, a person I interviewed once started berating me about my firm had poor project management practices ... and he still came off as less anti-social than you do.

Seriously, I once interviewed a candidate who told me how he spent his study time getting his golf handicap down.

I didn't think it was out of the question to hire him; I would NEVER hire somebody who behaves in an interview the way you have indicated that you behave.

Edited to point out: "gold" for "golf" is a typo; "it's" for "its" is poor grammar

Seriously,

I just spoke with Plato, and he told me to tell you

"I knew Socrates, Socrates was a friend of mine, and TZK is no Socrates."

Originally Posted by TZK

Exactly all of this is irrelevant because the subject is what if interviewers respond poorly to subconscious cues. . .

From reading a bit of your posts, it is clear that the interviewee has responded poorly to social cues. An interview is not about flinching. I hate it when a candidate flinches. It's not about proving you are right, either. It is about listening to each other. The interviewer wants to know that you know your stuff, yes, but he also wants to know if you communicate well, if you play well with others, if there are any red flags, etc. Listening politely to the interviewer's question, considering it seriously, and answering in a non-arrogant way are all things you should have done. It's possible you did the first. It's clear you didn't do the second or third.

"Well, I didn't do step C because of X, Y, and Z, which applied in this situation." might have been a fine answer. "C is unnecessary" is not a fine answer - there may well be a situation you don't know about where C was critical. Even if it's always true that C is unneeded, you have just been rude to your interviewer.

Originally Posted by Will Durant

Seriously, I once interviewed a candidate who told me how he spent his study time getting his golf handicap down.

I didn't think it was out of the question to hire him; I would NEVER hire somebody who behaves in an interview the way you have indicated that you behave.

Edited to point out: "gold" for "golf" is a typo; "it's" for "its" is poor grammar

[abwoc]

Originally Posted by TZK

3) The most enlightened approach is to deem knowledge the result of an algorithm. In this case, knowledge is the absence of information that contradicts what you believe including people who disagree.

Is this really "the most enlightened" approach--adding beliefs into your bank of knowledge until you happen across a contradiction, at which point you must dispose of one or more offending beliefs?

Any good epistemologist would agree that this "enlightened" approach is how every Joe Schmo tends to his set of beliefs. When Squanto believes that his rain dance is what saved the crops last harvest and cannot find a reason to overturn that belief, do you really want to say that his approach to knowledge is "the most enlightened"?

Originally Posted by TZK

Thus you can have knowledge, as long as you have tried your best to disprove it. You even solicited the help of others who wanted to disprove it and you still failed to disprove it.

You can only have knowledge if you have tried your best to disprove it? This requirement is far too limiting--you could never know very simple things that we would like to say that we know. For example, if you were sitting at home, you couldn't just know you were at home, because you hadn't tried your best to disprove it. At the very least, you would have to look out the window and verify that the view matches your belief of what your yard looks like.

Epistemology 101, man. However, I would spend less time trying to become a philosopher and more time trying to become a happy and successful actuary.

[WWSituation]

Wow - I've never seen Will Durant on life-tilt! I also agree with everything he said. You are a knob and may make a good employee one day if you find the right knob to work for.

[barry]

This may be beating a a dead horse (I know there's a little moving icon for that, but I'm new at this)

If in fact you are not a troll, these are the questions I think you should be asking yourself. Take my advice or ignore it; I will not engage in a philosophical debate over it.

1. What is your goal when interviewing?
2. What is your goal when posting questions to the AO?

My answers:
1. To get the job
2. To get advice

What I perceive your answers to currently be:
1. To prove your intellectual superiority
2. To prove your intellectual superiority

If these are not actually your goals, you'll have to work to get in step with social mores, so people will stop perceiving these to be your intentions, and subsequently be offended or otherwise turned off.
(In your example, flinching was not the issue, your response implicitly said "you're wrong" to the interviewer. People do not like to hear that, even implicity, and will be left with a less favorable impression of you. I do not have logical/philosophical reasoning to back that up- it's just how it is in our society. You could have not flinched and still given a much nicer impression of yourself if you would have worded your reply, "Oh, is that really needed? I was thinking it wasn't because....")

For simplicity, let's pretend there are only 2 attributes in the business world:
-intelligence
-likeability

You can have loads of excess intelligence and prove it to people, but it will do you no good until you meet the minimun likeability threshold.

[Jonas Grumby]

Originally Posted by abwoc

When Squanto believes that his rain dance is what saved the crops last harvest and cannot find a reason to overturn that belief, do you really want to say that his approach to knowledge is "the most enlightened"?

This is a trick question. Squanto would never have done a 'rain dance'.