7 ms·

The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can g

The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can guess what the interviewers will ask you and from what I've read from the text he aced those. If this is the tech business rolls what I see that it wants developers with a history, with connections, with "clout" so to speak; doesn't matter if you can help their business immensely, or fit to the position they are listing for. And this attitude is really really paradoxical. Like you are not searching for a candidate with required skillset but an ideal candidate with required skillset with glowing references. Because why take the risk? Like having a glowing history prevents anything happening... Anyway imho what you are trying to gauge from a job interview is how good that guy/gal is. And I'm sure if that guy did say "I am an newly trained man with no relevant job history" he wouldn't go into the interview stage even though he knows his stuff for his application. I mean if he failed that, I'd say "okay this guy is trying to scam this company" but no, he is able and informed about the position he is applying to. And that's totally irrelevant from the text I am reading. Which is bonkers if you pardon my french. This text also reminded me of a quote from Neil Gaiman, he faked his references for his first job and then he worked to create those references(https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-neil-gaiman-commencement-speech-to-the-university-of-the-arts-class-of-2012/2/ https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-neil-gaiman-commencem...). In his words he was "chronologically challenged". So if he was trying to be a writer in our modern times, we wouldn't have a Neil Gaiman.

lvillani 8y ago
His knowledge is solid, sure, but would you really want to work with someone who has such a strong inclination to cheat and deceive? I certainly wouldn't.
- tomcooks 8y ago
  He adapted to an unfavourable situation, studied hard, did his research well and passed multiple tests - I'd gladly work with someone like that
  - watwut 8y ago
    Such people make the homework, research well and then user result to blame you for their fault exactly when you cant defend yourself or claim your achievements for themselves. That sort of behavior can be pretty poisonous for whole team.
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    And when the solution to the next unfavorable situation he faces involves railroading you? Liars lie and cheaters cheat. You might be fine if you're never their target, but you never know when you will be.
    - aje403 8y ago
      Exactly this. You have to be very naive and sheltered to not recognize this as being the case.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      Well said. These types of people are driven by an extreme arrogance that manifests itself as the justification for any bad behavior. Ultimately they believe they are always right, so if they have to lie in order to get you fired, that's fine, because clearly your crazy ideas are a threat to everyone's livelihood, and it would just be better for everyone if you were gone from the office, they just don't know it yet, but I have a knack for these things that others seem to lack, so I'll take it upon myself to engineer your firing.
      - magduf 8y ago
        The companies they're applying to are engaged in behavior that is just as bad, so these "catfishers" are just creatively adapting to the unfavorable situation that employers have collectively created.
        nkrisc 8y ago
        You're right. Still wouldn't hire them.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  I think OPs point is, or maybe that's just my point, that in general and broader terms there should not be such a pressure to begin with. OP gave an example that even the best felt/feel it. So, on an individual basis, no, I would not want to hire that person out of an abundance of caution, but on a broader basis I would not like the pressure to do such a thing to exist to begin with. It's like crime: You want to punish each individual crimes, but you also want policies that lower crime rates, and that does not mean that you "reward crime" or that you "give in to criminals". We all know the hiring process has some seriously broken elements, so a desperate candidate may feel pressured and justified to do so because the other side does not play nice or rational either - plus pressure from society "it's all your own fault" (if you don't succeed, and you won't get any help from anyone unless you happen to be lucky enough to have the right parents). Here in Germany we just had another (it's a regular thing) headline about "skilled labor shortage in IT" in all major German newspapers. Strange thing is, salaries for skilled workers (engineers, CS) have not risen significantly in a loooong time. Since salaries are not regulated by law that means the companies are lying. Of course, I still would prefer people who don't use a wider development as justification for lying themselves (mismatch of scale/perspective), but I can see and would expect a broader (downward) trend from there. Or back to (and finishing) the crime example, if you create an environment of immense pressure, bad chances for improvement, etc. and then you compensate for the increase in crimes by punishing people harder (and harder)... sure, some might say it's all justified, why did they commit a crime? That is an interesting example why looking at each case individually may lead to a very different conclusion compared to looking at a broader picture. Another example is cheating at universities. Individually every student who does it may deserve punishment, but it would be a good idea to look at the reasons for why it's so widespread. You create pressure, something is going to happen on the other end.
  - lostcolony 8y ago
    So what's your solution? UBI? Because when a person's ability to make money and take care of themselves is on the line, in competing for a job against other candidates, there will ALWAYS be high levels of pressure. The guy mentioned in the OP wasn't experiencing any additional pressure beyond "I need a job"; he wasn't in some high stress boiler style interview (the interview actually sounds like just casual conversation), it was just that his resume, that he sent everywhere prior to any interview, was filled with lies. It's not the interview process that was messed up here, it's that in response to the basic competitive nature of "there is one job opening and multiple applicants, and, oh, yeah, we need someone who knows their stuff", he decided to lie about his experience. If that basic arrangement is somehow at fault, rather than this one guy who lied, then you're questioning not the nature of interviews, but the nature of jobs in a free market.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Spearchucker 8y ago
  I don't know. And given his ability I'd like to know. So if it were up to me I'd call him back in, confront him, and ask why he did it. I'd make my decision after that.
- VLM 8y ago
  I thought for sure the story was going to be an Aesops Fable moral story along the lines of discrimination against trans people is illegal and wrong and the "rest of the story" is Susan's first name was Jack until six months ago, therefore no one has any idea who Susan is. Also this is a sales position; not being overly detailed about the product's occasional quirk is not an on the job problem... if the applicant can talk a good talk and behave in a professional manner there doesn't seem to be an issue. Classic philosophical religious debate for centuries, is it more important to have right behavior or right thoughts?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
thyrsus 8y ago
I got the impression from the article that this was for a sales position - "AE role" - account executive. A good tech sales rep must have a solid understanding of the product and its place in the tech environment, but they also need to be trustworthy, to the benefit of both their employer and customer.
- dx034 8y ago
  But if that's judged by the companies you've worked for, how do you get in if you didn't study at the right university or come from the right background?
- dorkwood 8y ago
  I thought it was an After Effects role.
Maken 8y ago
I guess it is because nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.
Beltiras 8y ago
You only get once chance at a first impression. This applicant took the chance that a lie was a good first impression. Lying on an application is just a non-starter.
mettamage 8y ago
I applaud that you give this comment. Your comment seems indeed controversial, but you gave it in a thoughtful manner and you dared to give it. This is what I like about HN: thoughtful comments that may be controversial but are relevant even at the risk of one's own reputation. From my own limited interview experience: companies reject you for the silliest things, in my opinion and I have decided that I need to deceive in order for my value to be seen in the right manner. It might be the case I'm arrogant, but I also notice that people who had a computer science education at the same uni as I went to are the only ones to actually evaluate in the right way. Whenever I get interviewed by non CS people at startups they just evaluate it as I did some rote learning psychology-esque degree[1], which is next to useless according to them. So yes, I should deceive those people in that I have more working experience than I do, because uni gave me part of that working experience but there is no chance in hell that they would believe that. I know this to be true because the jobs that I did get, I performed well at, according to the people who hired me. And somehow people always seem to be a bit surprised. People always seem to be a bit surprised when a CS graduate in general works out. I just find it silly, CS in Amsterdam is not that math heavy and it is programming heavy, what do you expect? [1] 50% of my psych. degree (2nd bachelor, I'm Dutch) required a lot of rote learning. One third of the degree was statistics / academic writing, the rest were electives.
- aje403 8y ago
  What are you even talking about? His opinion is not remotely controversial. Every populist hivemind drone on this site contends some form of this argument. Not a single person is (at least, getting upvoted) DEFENDING high or reasonable hiring bars - that is a controversial opinion.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    That seems like a misreading of the question. The bar is high, and he cleared it, but was invited to try because of his fraudulent credential.
    - aje403 8y ago
ebbv 8y ago
Dude, no. Someone who would lie this much to get what he wants will lie when you're working with him. If he makes a big mistake he will lie about it to avoid getting fired just as surely as he lied to get the job. Citing Neil Gaiman -- or some other celebrity -- doesn't do anything to make this less true.
- welly 8y ago
  To get what he wants? Would that be a job? So are you saying that in all your interviews you've had in the past you've been absolutely, positively 100% truthful about your experience and knowledge? That you've never inflated your abilities whatsoever?
  - ebbv 8y ago
    Yes, absolutely. If anything I err on the side of playing things down. I never want to promise something I can't deliver or tell someone I'm more than I am. Besides, that's not even the issue. This guy just flat out lied. Not exaggerated, he told lies and built upon them. There's no excuse for that.
    - cookiecaper 8y ago
      Yes. Exaggeration and puffing yourself up, while tacky, is par for the course, and to be honest, it's likely to get good candidates closer to an accurate representation than not, since better people tend to underplay their abilities, often subconsciously (cf. Dunning-Kruger Effect). But falsifying references with fake phone numbers and email addresses, and then actually operating those numbers and emails and impersonating someone else, that's a whole 'nother ballpark and it likely crosses into fraud. While one can sympathize if they choose to work from the presupposition that our candidate is in the unlikely-but-not-totally-unrealistic circumstance of being capable but "steal bread to eat" desperate, it's a pretty hard sell to expect someone without a pre-existing relationship to excuse that type of behavior when it gets caught out like this.
- magduf 8y ago
  He was applying to a sales position. Sales is fundamentally about lying to potential customers to sell them stuff.
csomar 8y ago
Indeed. But the guy did some fraud. Not stealing or something criminal (like poisoning a human). Then the guy should have been a good hire for the company? Well, it is complicated. Let's say you need an alpha male for a certain position. Do you pick someone with a sexual harassment history? I mean he might be alpha but then you are exposing your company to risks of this guy harassing other employees. Same in this situation. He might lie, fabricate, and make facts to push his agenda. This might work depending on what your line of work is doing (ie: maybe you are shady call center anyway). But this might be dangerous if you require complete discipline and this might blow up later (see Uber). But here is the issue: The guy was rejected based on an emotional response from the hiring guy. He just felt defeated by the skillfulness of the guy. We don't know where the OP operates, so that is that.
hodgesrm 8y ago
Are you saying it's good to hire people who lie to get through the interview? What would they lie about on the job? This kind of thing can end badly. I worked with a guy who was kicked out of two companies (first for fiddling expenses and second for faking his CV on a grand scale) and ended up sentenced to 64 months in prison for fraud. [0] He fooled a lot of very smart people along the way. I still don't fully understand why he did it--he was a smart guy and didn't need to cut corners to be very successful. [0] http://fraudtalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/former-california-software-exec.html http://fraudtalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/former-california-soft...
- adamzk 8y ago
  Yeah but he did it to get the job not to defraud anyone. That's dedication not deceit. He wasn't pretending to be anybody else. He was probably rejected from a million jobs before this one despite presumably being extremely well prepared and qualified. So other options are there? Fudge the references, perform well and ask for forgiveness later. I say hire him. Not everybody has the luxury of a fancy education and the connections that come with it. Not everybody comes from an environment where they have the privilege of interaction with others in the field. Some of us come from nothing and educate ourselves independently. It's a shame that its nearly impossible to get one's foot in the door despite having ostensibly worked harder than many of those who were given a fair shot. Check your privilege.
  - hodgesrm 8y ago
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. For me honesty ranks way higher up the scale for hiring than technical credentials. You can teach people technical skills. Good character not so much. p.s. I don't have a CS degree and finished my BA/History going to extension school part-time while serving in the US military. p.p.s, If you have a less-than-honorable discharge you'll also have a tough time getting through the interview process with me.
ThrustVectoring 8y ago
Well, there's a big difference between a hiring manager and a company. A company wants to hire the best developer they can get; the hiring manager wants to get praised for making a "good hire" and avoid getting blamed for making a "bad hire". The glowing references doesn't do anything that skill and personality screening doesn't in terms of assessing actual candidate skill. They do, however, provide a ton of ass-covering for the hiring manager.

lvillani 8y ago

His knowledge is solid, sure, but would you really want to work with someone who has such a strong inclination to cheat and deceive? I certainly wouldn't.

tomcooks 8y ago
He adapted to an unfavourable situation, studied hard, did his research well and passed multiple tests - I'd gladly work with someone like that
- watwut 8y ago
  Such people make the homework, research well and then user result to blame you for their fault exactly when you cant defend yourself or claim your achievements for themselves. That sort of behavior can be pretty poisonous for whole team.
- nkrisc 8y ago
  And when the solution to the next unfavorable situation he faces involves railroading you? Liars lie and cheaters cheat. You might be fine if you're never their target, but you never know when you will be.
  - aje403 8y ago
    Exactly this. You have to be very naive and sheltered to not recognize this as being the case.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    Well said. These types of people are driven by an extreme arrogance that manifests itself as the justification for any bad behavior. Ultimately they believe they are always right, so if they have to lie in order to get you fired, that's fine, because clearly your crazy ideas are a threat to everyone's livelihood, and it would just be better for everyone if you were gone from the office, they just don't know it yet, but I have a knack for these things that others seem to lack, so I'll take it upon myself to engineer your firing.
    - magduf 8y ago
      The companies they're applying to are engaged in behavior that is just as bad, so these "catfishers" are just creatively adapting to the unfavorable situation that employers have collectively created.
      - nkrisc 8y ago
        You're right. Still wouldn't hire them.
ItsMe000001 8y ago
I think OPs point is, or maybe that's just my point, that in general and broader terms there should not be such a pressure to begin with. OP gave an example that even the best felt/feel it. So, on an individual basis, no, I would not want to hire that person out of an abundance of caution, but on a broader basis I would not like the pressure to do such a thing to exist to begin with. It's like crime: You want to punish each individual crimes, but you also want policies that lower crime rates, and that does not mean that you "reward crime" or that you "give in to criminals". We all know the hiring process has some seriously broken elements, so a desperate candidate may feel pressured and justified to do so because the other side does not play nice or rational either - plus pressure from society "it's all your own fault" (if you don't succeed, and you won't get any help from anyone unless you happen to be lucky enough to have the right parents). Here in Germany we just had another (it's a regular thing) headline about "skilled labor shortage in IT" in all major German newspapers. Strange thing is, salaries for skilled workers (engineers, CS) have not risen significantly in a loooong time. Since salaries are not regulated by law that means the companies are lying. Of course, I still would prefer people who don't use a wider development as justification for lying themselves (mismatch of scale/perspective), but I can see and would expect a broader (downward) trend from there. Or back to (and finishing) the crime example, if you create an environment of immense pressure, bad chances for improvement, etc. and then you compensate for the increase in crimes by punishing people harder (and harder)... sure, some might say it's all justified, why did they commit a crime? That is an interesting example why looking at each case individually may lead to a very different conclusion compared to looking at a broader picture. Another example is cheating at universities. Individually every student who does it may deserve punishment, but it would be a good idea to look at the reasons for why it's so widespread. You create pressure, something is going to happen on the other end.
- lostcolony 8y ago
  So what's your solution? UBI? Because when a person's ability to make money and take care of themselves is on the line, in competing for a job against other candidates, there will ALWAYS be high levels of pressure. The guy mentioned in the OP wasn't experiencing any additional pressure beyond "I need a job"; he wasn't in some high stress boiler style interview (the interview actually sounds like just casual conversation), it was just that his resume, that he sent everywhere prior to any interview, was filled with lies. It's not the interview process that was messed up here, it's that in response to the basic competitive nature of "there is one job opening and multiple applicants, and, oh, yeah, we need someone who knows their stuff", he decided to lie about his experience. If that basic arrangement is somehow at fault, rather than this one guy who lied, then you're questioning not the nature of interviews, but the nature of jobs in a free market.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Spearchucker 8y ago
I don't know. And given his ability I'd like to know. So if it were up to me I'd call him back in, confront him, and ask why he did it. I'd make my decision after that.
VLM 8y ago
I thought for sure the story was going to be an Aesops Fable moral story along the lines of discrimination against trans people is illegal and wrong and the "rest of the story" is Susan's first name was Jack until six months ago, therefore no one has any idea who Susan is. Also this is a sales position; not being overly detailed about the product's occasional quirk is not an on the job problem... if the applicant can talk a good talk and behave in a professional manner there doesn't seem to be an issue. Classic philosophical religious debate for centuries, is it more important to have right behavior or right thoughts?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

thyrsus 8y ago

I got the impression from the article that this was for a sales position - "AE role" - account executive. A good tech sales rep must have a solid understanding of the product and its place in the tech environment, but they also need to be trustworthy, to the benefit of both their employer and customer.

dx034 8y ago
But if that's judged by the companies you've worked for, how do you get in if you didn't study at the right university or come from the right background?
dorkwood 8y ago
I thought it was an After Effects role.

Maken 8y ago

I guess it is because nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.

Beltiras 8y ago

You only get once chance at a first impression. This applicant took the chance that a lie was a good first impression. Lying on an application is just a non-starter.

mettamage 8y ago

I applaud that you give this comment. Your comment seems indeed controversial, but you gave it in a thoughtful manner and you dared to give it. This is what I like about HN: thoughtful comments that may be controversial but are relevant even at the risk of one's own reputation. From my own limited interview experience: companies reject you for the silliest things, in my opinion and I have decided that I need to deceive in order for my value to be seen in the right manner. It might be the case I'm arrogant, but I also notice that people who had a computer science education at the same uni as I went to are the only ones to actually evaluate in the right way. Whenever I get interviewed by non CS people at startups they just evaluate it as I did some rote learning psychology-esque degree[1], which is next to useless according to them. So yes, I should deceive those people in that I have more working experience than I do, because uni gave me part of that working experience but there is no chance in hell that they would believe that. I know this to be true because the jobs that I did get, I performed well at, according to the people who hired me. And somehow people always seem to be a bit surprised. People always seem to be a bit surprised when a CS graduate in general works out. I just find it silly, CS in Amsterdam is not that math heavy and it is programming heavy, what do you expect? [1] 50% of my psych. degree (2nd bachelor, I'm Dutch) required a lot of rote learning. One third of the degree was statistics / academic writing, the rest were electives.

aje403 8y ago
What are you even talking about? His opinion is not remotely controversial. Every populist hivemind drone on this site contends some form of this argument. Not a single person is (at least, getting upvoted) DEFENDING high or reasonable hiring bars - that is a controversial opinion.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  That seems like a misreading of the question. The bar is high, and he cleared it, but was invited to try because of his fraudulent credential.
  - aje403 8y ago

ebbv 8y ago

Dude, no. Someone who would lie this much to get what he wants will lie when you're working with him. If he makes a big mistake he will lie about it to avoid getting fired just as surely as he lied to get the job. Citing Neil Gaiman -- or some other celebrity -- doesn't do anything to make this less true.

welly 8y ago
To get what he wants? Would that be a job? So are you saying that in all your interviews you've had in the past you've been absolutely, positively 100% truthful about your experience and knowledge? That you've never inflated your abilities whatsoever?
- ebbv 8y ago
  Yes, absolutely. If anything I err on the side of playing things down. I never want to promise something I can't deliver or tell someone I'm more than I am. Besides, that's not even the issue. This guy just flat out lied. Not exaggerated, he told lies and built upon them. There's no excuse for that.
  - cookiecaper 8y ago
    Yes. Exaggeration and puffing yourself up, while tacky, is par for the course, and to be honest, it's likely to get good candidates closer to an accurate representation than not, since better people tend to underplay their abilities, often subconsciously (cf. Dunning-Kruger Effect). But falsifying references with fake phone numbers and email addresses, and then actually operating those numbers and emails and impersonating someone else, that's a whole 'nother ballpark and it likely crosses into fraud. While one can sympathize if they choose to work from the presupposition that our candidate is in the unlikely-but-not-totally-unrealistic circumstance of being capable but "steal bread to eat" desperate, it's a pretty hard sell to expect someone without a pre-existing relationship to excuse that type of behavior when it gets caught out like this.
magduf 8y ago
He was applying to a sales position. Sales is fundamentally about lying to potential customers to sell them stuff.

csomar 8y ago

Indeed. But the guy did some fraud. Not stealing or something criminal (like poisoning a human). Then the guy should have been a good hire for the company? Well, it is complicated. Let's say you need an alpha male for a certain position. Do you pick someone with a sexual harassment history? I mean he might be alpha but then you are exposing your company to risks of this guy harassing other employees. Same in this situation. He might lie, fabricate, and make facts to push his agenda. This might work depending on what your line of work is doing (ie: maybe you are shady call center anyway). But this might be dangerous if you require complete discipline and this might blow up later (see Uber). But here is the issue: The guy was rejected based on an emotional response from the hiring guy. He just felt defeated by the skillfulness of the guy. We don't know where the OP operates, so that is that.

hodgesrm 8y ago

Are you saying it's good to hire people who lie to get through the interview? What would they lie about on the job? This kind of thing can end badly. I worked with a guy who was kicked out of two companies (first for fiddling expenses and second for faking his CV on a grand scale) and ended up sentenced to 64 months in prison for fraud. [0] He fooled a lot of very smart people along the way. I still don't fully understand why he did it--he was a smart guy and didn't need to cut corners to be very successful. [0] http://fraudtalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/former-california-software-exec.html http://fraudtalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/former-california-soft...

adamzk 8y ago
Yeah but he did it to get the job not to defraud anyone. That's dedication not deceit. He wasn't pretending to be anybody else. He was probably rejected from a million jobs before this one despite presumably being extremely well prepared and qualified. So other options are there? Fudge the references, perform well and ask for forgiveness later. I say hire him. Not everybody has the luxury of a fancy education and the connections that come with it. Not everybody comes from an environment where they have the privilege of interaction with others in the field. Some of us come from nothing and educate ourselves independently. It's a shame that its nearly impossible to get one's foot in the door despite having ostensibly worked harder than many of those who were given a fair shot. Check your privilege.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. For me honesty ranks way higher up the scale for hiring than technical credentials. You can teach people technical skills. Good character not so much. p.s. I don't have a CS degree and finished my BA/History going to extension school part-time while serving in the US military. p.p.s, If you have a less-than-honorable discharge you'll also have a tough time getting through the interview process with me.

ThrustVectoring 8y ago

Well, there's a big difference between a hiring manager and a company. A company wants to hire the best developer they can get; the hiring manager wants to get praised for making a "good hire" and avoid getting blamed for making a "bad hire". The glowing references doesn't do anything that skill and personality screening doesn't in terms of assessing actual candidate skill. They do, however, provide a ton of ass-covering for the hiring manager.