Comment by jumper_F00BA2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jumper_F00BA2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sympathy for the interviewer. Well guess what, you're not going to find much luck pulling this yarn.

Some interviewers get the fist. And that's just the way it goes.

If I'm supposed to play toady to this dog and pony show we're trying put on together, don't step in front of me with some condescending question, that we both know is cherry-picked trivia. You design questions to stump people, knock them off balance, introduce a choke, and project a facade of superiority, when we both know that's not fair play, and you expect something other than contempt?

I'm not reciting all the state capitals, every U.S. holiday on the calendar, and every county in the state of California for you. Try your luck with the next applicant.

You can't expect me to roll over as subordinate, when I'm looking right at you, and you and I both know that the canned question you just asked is total bullshit. Sorry, now I know you're a follower, not a leader, and I won't be led by you. Interview over.

And besides, do you really believe that passive aggression, as a personality trait, isn't a possibility, simply because it wasn't on display during that particular interview. Most smart people do have a passive aggressive mean streak, because it's a tactic, not a personality trait. It's in everyone's tool kit, and smart people use it in anger. If it gets used on you, especially when everyone in the room was trying to make a good first impression, maybe you did something to provoke that.

So I can tell you're pretty upset about being treated this way, and I can sympathize with the frustration. But maybe my point will be better received if I clarify it to make it more concise. In essence:

1. You are responding to these kinds of interviews as though the interviewers are malicious, self-aware of their biases and intentionally trying to personally offend you. But it's not personal and not all interviewers are trying to conspire like this. Consider that what you're feeling and perceiving may not be intended by the interviewers.

2. As a corollary, your relationship and responses to these interviewers are retributional and deconstructive instead of educational and constructive. You're writing off companies because their interviewers offend your sensibilities. But just as interviewers don't have enough information to know why you're reacting the way you are, you don't know if they're trying to be as demeaning as you feel they're being.

In other words, not all companies with suboptimal interviewing methods are shitty companies. Probably most are not! Given that, the way you're reacting isn't just a sensitivity to personal offense, it's getting in your own way professionally.

It's on the person holding all the cards to display their power judiciously. Something designed to provoke undue stress is either glib or provocative, by default.

Don't forget, in this card game, you may be the dealer and the asymetric equation may be tipped in your favor, but play fair or some of the players might surprise you by throwing the game.

As "The Boss" you better not only know more, but also consider how put that on display. If you're actually in possession of gifted, multi-faceted intelligence, you won't need to read minds, so much as place yourselves in the shoes of the candidate, as you probe for awareness of facts, and exposure to subject matter.

It's often enough, to understand the conceptual interplay of known processes, before worrying about which color Teletubbie was the "funny" one.

> it's a tactic, not a personality trait

that seems like a false dichotomy. you behave as cruel and abusive as you do because it's within you to behave that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com