4 ms·
If they brought it up in an interview at all, that means that it was part of their decision. The way he portraits the line of questioning, his having quite narr
by rdancer 11y ago
If they brought it up in an interview at all, that means that it was part of their decision. The way he portraits the line of questioning, his having quite narrowly dissenting opinions (that is to say, any own opinions at all) was a dealbreaker.
- tbrownaw 11y agoIf they brought it up in an interview at all, that means that it was part of their decision. Not necessarily. It could be something they thought might lead somewhere interesting ("Do you know about $foo? Cool, so what's your opinion on this detail?"; the first question is only useful to know if you can ask the second questions). It could be stalling for time while they try to come up with something useful to ask. It could be following up on some earlier comment, according to the rules of polite small talk. Those last two aren't something a skilled interviewer would do, but then I don't think most interviewers are skilled. They also don't fit with the original post, but the first one might.
- rdancer 11y agoIn general, you may be right, but is this really what could be happening here — how can the fact that future colleagues consider the interviewees political views reactionary be used to set up any licit line of questioning?