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

[kazh]

Originally Posted by enyj

Hey.. its the professor's fault. He flinched when I questioned him with a straight face!

Try questioning him with a gay face.

[banpeikun]

Originally Posted by mhsmith

I flinch when people surprise me from behind...

that's what she said?

[TZK]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Raschke

The reaction of the interviewer is likely not within his conscious control, either. Being sure of yourself without being intimidating is possible. It may not be natural for you, but it is a learnable skill. Focusing on the things you have control over is a more effective option than expecting the world to change to suit your ideals, at least when you are operating from a position of weakness.

Should ain't got nothin' to do with it.

So you don't disagree that such behavior might be immature and selfish, you just think they can get away with it.

However I think the company that employs them has an interest in more objective hiring criteria.

[TZK]

Originally Posted by glassjaws

You prove Twig's point by overlooking the fact that although you can technically be able to produce a product via steps A,B and D, it is not the most correct path to follow. As an example, you could build a car and never perform any safety tests on it. If you mass produce and sell the car without taking the step to make sure it was safe, you'll be facing a lot of liability if there is a major problem with the cars that would have been fleshed out in safety testing. Therefore, I don't think it's that the conversation Twig poses intimates the interviewer fails to grasp "subconscious" clues or whatever you call them. I think it's that they deem the interviewee as being too dense and pedantic to work with, due to their failure to consider more than the technicality of being "right".

This is a good example of how ignorance causes people to misinterpret arguments and think they are right when they really have no clue what they are talking about. For example, this guy's horrible problem solving skills.

The safety standards are in place for a reason that become part of the parameters of the situation in which you must decide on a plan of action. C isn't "technically avoidable" if safety is part of the parameters of the environment in which you must form a plan.

Do you realize how you look to someone like me saying "OMG UR WRONG CAUSE IF U SEZ 1+1+2 BECUZ IF ONE WAS REALLY 2 THEN 1+1=4 SO YOU WERE STUPID TO THINK YOU KNEW"

To be honest I am not going to waste much more of my time responding to every idiotic moron with an internet connection that can straw man an argument that they either don't understand or refuse to accept.

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.

Originally Posted by TZK

. . .
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. . .

this is where you are confused. It's NOT antisocial to be right more than other people, but there are socially acceptable and socially unacceptable ways of telling a superior that he is wrong. (And the interviewer is your social superior for the duration of the interview.) If you want to work effectively with others, you need to learn the distinction.

[TZK]

Originally Posted by Lucy

this is where you are confused. It's NOT antisocial to be right more than other people, but there are socially acceptable and socially unacceptable ways of telling a superior that he is wrong. (And the interviewer is your social superior for the duration of the interview.) If you want to work effectively with others, you need to learn the distinction.

These so called acceptable ways only work ONCE on a statistical out lier situation where a person with intelligence gathering ability equal to or below the "superior" stumbles across something the "superior" missed.

If you are right 2 or more times in a short period and try to use the "Oh simple mistake I thought the same thing" approach implying that your intelligence gathering abilities are equal or less on average the clear disproof of it's implication causes the "superior" to be even MORE insulted.

In the end it's the REALITY of the situation that causes them to have contempt for what happens not how it is approached.

The simple fact is SOME PEOPLE REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THEY ARE IN THE POPULATION. Everyone wants everything to be equal, and lashes out at anything that shows or implies this to be false.

Originally Posted by TZK

These so called acceptable ways only work ONCE on a statistical out lier situation where a person with intelligence gathering ability equal to or below the "superior" stumbles across something the "superior" missed.

If you are right 2 or more times in a short period and try to use the "Oh simple mistake I thought the same thing" implying that your intelligence gathering abilities are equal or less on average the clear disproof of it's implication causes the "superior" to be even MORE insulted.

Huh? If you are this clear in explaining stuff to people, I think I know why the interviewer wasn't impressed.

I point out errors to my boss whenever I happen upon them. My staff does the same to me. I am generally grateful when my staff does so, and I believe my boss generally feels the same way.

[TZK]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Huh? If you are this clear in explaining stuff to people, I think I know why the interviewer wasn't impressed.

I point out errors to my boss whenever I happen upon them. My staff does the same to me. I am generally grateful when my staff does so, and I believe my boss generally feels the same way.

Nice attempted cop out. Unfortunately if we allowed someone to claim "I don't get it" whenever they lost an argument then they would always say that regardless of how well it was explained.

If you accept that a single person is often the source of recognition of errors you overlooked, than you are emotionally mature and the person doing it doesn't need to walk on eggshells when pointing them out to you.

If you can't accept that, then it doesn't matter how they approach it. When they recognize multiple things you missed you will get pissed.

[kolya23]

Originally Posted by TZK

The simple fact is SOME PEOPLE REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE POPULATION.

No, we fully accept that there are different levels of intelligence in the population. Your posts have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[asdfasdf]

Originally Posted by TZK

Nice attempted cop out. Unfortunately if we allowed someone to claim "I don't get it" whenever they lost an argument then they would always say that regardless of how well it was explained.

If you accept that a single person is often the source of recognition of errors you overlooked, than you are emotionally mature and the person doing it doesn't need to walk on eggshells when pointing them out to you.

If you can't accept that, then it doesn't matter how they approach it. When they recognize multiple things you missed you will get pissed.

What are you arguing here? If you give us an actual real world interview example where you pointed out something that was wrong with the interviewer it would be something with a "right" and "wrong" answer. Here your whining, not even attempting to argue.