5 ms·

That's just a new spin on a trick question and is quite frankly bullshit. You are right away telling the person you are going to be deceptive and they need to c

That's just a new spin on a trick question and is quite frankly bullshit. You are right away telling the person you are going to be deceptive and they need to catch your lie. It's a terrible tactic.

mitchty 8y ago
Indeed, all that would do is make me walk out and say good luck with that tactic. I'll find somewhere else to work.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Lying to a candidate immediately sets a pretty bad image of the company. While someone might try to put things in the best light as possible, maybe with some small exaggeration. That is a huge difference between "I am lying to you"
  - retsibsi 8y ago
    Isn't 'lying' a bit strong here? When ALittleLight said > I always preface these sections of the interview with a moment to explain that I expect them to push back and disagree if I say something they think is wrong so that we can talk about it. I interpreted that as, at least implicitly, flagging to the interviewee that not everything the interviewer says will accurately represent his/her views. Perhaps it could be made clearer, but it doesn't seem like the intent is to deceive.
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      Yes, I intentionally didn't go into to much detail and I think that's obscured what I was trying to say. I explicitly tell the candidate that I may defend points I disagree with and that I want them to push back if they disagree. Furthermore, the interview question where I do this is about a hypothetical project where we are prioritizing work that needs to be done in order to ship a project. While I didn't offer the clarity in the earlier comment, I don't think there's a way it could fairly be interpreted as lying or deceiving.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      The poster literally said they were going to intentionally say things that they know are false. That's pretty much the definition of a liar and outright deceptive. Besides that, the tactic of trying to be debative and in this case outright dishonest and slightly combative is an incredibly terrible method for interviews. Honestly the poster should be banned from giving interviews.
      - portent 8y ago
        The poster is using an interview technique of creating an imaginary scenario, e.g. "deal with a work colleague who is advocating a sub-optimal position". This seems entirely reasonable. It seems to me that you've jumped to a very strong conclusion, based on a brief conversation that you have interpreted in the least charitable way possible.
cdoxsey 8y ago
I think the OP might've just meant playing the devils advocate which is often a good way of encouraging discussion.
ALittleLight 8y ago
A large portion of my job, and the role I interview for, involves discussing alternatives, taking positions, attacking and defending them. I use hypothetical situations, and defend what I think are incorrect positions, to see how the candidates defend their positions. To me, this is an efficient test of a few things - can they identify the best position, will they resist the bad arguments I put forth to advocate for my bad position, and will they give intelligent and clear arguments to defend their position? It's a huge part of the job and the idea that I shouldn't test people on it strikes me as absurd. You seem like you're jumping to interpret what I've said negatively.
- invalidOrTaken 8y ago
  There's a wonderful mechanism we've invented for this purpose. It's called tenure. Imagine a candidate who came in and said, "I'm really great at this computer stuff, just trust me!" but refused to show a resume, prior work, to even talk about it. "Push back, it's fine, trust us!" This ends up filtering for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so. So, good for you, I guess, but you could get better people by fixing your culture and being straight with people.
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    I don't understand any part of what you've written. Regarding tenure, I don't understand how that's applicable to hiring new people. Regarding the imaginary candidate I think this is supporting my point - no? Just like you wouldn't want to trust someone who offered no evidence for their abilities, I want to discern whether people can stand up to arguments and make compelling arguments for their case. In order to get the evidence I put them in a position to stand up to arguments and put arguments forward. Regarding your thoughts about how this filters people, I think you've summarized it incorrectly. Even if I agreed that asking people to argue against me in an interview was "bullshit" then that wouldn't filter only "for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so". Clearly, the people who have no other option would also put up with the tactic, as they have no other option. Thus, the filter, as you put it, filters only people who don't mind putting up with the interview question. This is actually a point in my favor because if the candidate is not comfortable arguing for or against positions in a professional context then they would not be a good fit for the role. Finally, you suggest "fixing your culture and being straight with people." I think I am being straight with the interviewee. I tell them upfront that if I say anything they disagree with I want them to push back on me, that I think disagreement and debate is positive and sometimes necessary. Again, the role requires disagreeing and pushing back on arguments, often in situations where there is pressure not to, so I think giving friendly encouragement and setting up a hypothetical situation where I will disagree with the candidate is a very reasonable thing to do.

That's just a new spin on a trick question and is quite frankly bullshit. You are right away telling the person you are going to be deceptive and they need to catch your lie. It's a terrible tactic.

mitchty 8y ago

Indeed, all that would do is make me walk out and say good luck with that tactic. I'll find somewhere else to work.

paulie_a 8y ago
Lying to a candidate immediately sets a pretty bad image of the company. While someone might try to put things in the best light as possible, maybe with some small exaggeration. That is a huge difference between "I am lying to you"
- retsibsi 8y ago
  Isn't 'lying' a bit strong here? When ALittleLight said > I always preface these sections of the interview with a moment to explain that I expect them to push back and disagree if I say something they think is wrong so that we can talk about it. I interpreted that as, at least implicitly, flagging to the interviewee that not everything the interviewer says will accurately represent his/her views. Perhaps it could be made clearer, but it doesn't seem like the intent is to deceive.
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    Yes, I intentionally didn't go into to much detail and I think that's obscured what I was trying to say. I explicitly tell the candidate that I may defend points I disagree with and that I want them to push back if they disagree. Furthermore, the interview question where I do this is about a hypothetical project where we are prioritizing work that needs to be done in order to ship a project. While I didn't offer the clarity in the earlier comment, I don't think there's a way it could fairly be interpreted as lying or deceiving.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    The poster literally said they were going to intentionally say things that they know are false. That's pretty much the definition of a liar and outright deceptive. Besides that, the tactic of trying to be debative and in this case outright dishonest and slightly combative is an incredibly terrible method for interviews. Honestly the poster should be banned from giving interviews.
    - portent 8y ago
      The poster is using an interview technique of creating an imaginary scenario, e.g. "deal with a work colleague who is advocating a sub-optimal position". This seems entirely reasonable. It seems to me that you've jumped to a very strong conclusion, based on a brief conversation that you have interpreted in the least charitable way possible.

cdoxsey 8y ago

I think the OP might've just meant playing the devils advocate which is often a good way of encouraging discussion.

ALittleLight 8y ago

A large portion of my job, and the role I interview for, involves discussing alternatives, taking positions, attacking and defending them. I use hypothetical situations, and defend what I think are incorrect positions, to see how the candidates defend their positions. To me, this is an efficient test of a few things - can they identify the best position, will they resist the bad arguments I put forth to advocate for my bad position, and will they give intelligent and clear arguments to defend their position? It's a huge part of the job and the idea that I shouldn't test people on it strikes me as absurd. You seem like you're jumping to interpret what I've said negatively.

invalidOrTaken 8y ago
There's a wonderful mechanism we've invented for this purpose. It's called tenure. Imagine a candidate who came in and said, "I'm really great at this computer stuff, just trust me!" but refused to show a resume, prior work, to even talk about it. "Push back, it's fine, trust us!" This ends up filtering for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so. So, good for you, I guess, but you could get better people by fixing your culture and being straight with people.
- ALittleLight 8y ago
  I don't understand any part of what you've written. Regarding tenure, I don't understand how that's applicable to hiring new people. Regarding the imaginary candidate I think this is supporting my point - no? Just like you wouldn't want to trust someone who offered no evidence for their abilities, I want to discern whether people can stand up to arguments and make compelling arguments for their case. In order to get the evidence I put them in a position to stand up to arguments and put arguments forward. Regarding your thoughts about how this filters people, I think you've summarized it incorrectly. Even if I agreed that asking people to argue against me in an interview was "bullshit" then that wouldn't filter only "for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so". Clearly, the people who have no other option would also put up with the tactic, as they have no other option. Thus, the filter, as you put it, filters only people who don't mind putting up with the interview question. This is actually a point in my favor because if the candidate is not comfortable arguing for or against positions in a professional context then they would not be a good fit for the role. Finally, you suggest "fixing your culture and being straight with people." I think I am being straight with the interviewee. I tell them upfront that if I say anything they disagree with I want them to push back on me, that I think disagreement and debate is positive and sometimes necessary. Again, the role requires disagreeing and pushing back on arguments, often in situations where there is pressure not to, so I think giving friendly encouragement and setting up a hypothetical situation where I will disagree with the candidate is a very reasonable thing to do.