> "I know some employees are going to try to steal from the register, but why would they admit that in an interview?“ A lot of the time, it’s an unfamiliarity

> "I know some employees are going to try to steal from the register, but why would they admit that in an interview?“ A lot of the time, it’s an unfamiliarity with “test taking as being a test of determining theory of mind of the test-giver”. Rather than answering however they think the test-giver would want the answers to look like, they approach the test with alternative less useful approaches, ones like “holistic reframed hypotheticals” where they’re thinking of the situation in a modified hypothetical with a real world context introduced and with information that might dramatically change one’s answer, such as “assume you’ve learned a coworker has taken some money out of the cash-drawer, how much money would be your threshold to snitch on them to management versus E.G. just asking them to put the money back?”, for which many people’s answer will not be “even one dollar”. It is a trained skill to know this is a flawed approach and that broadly, “most tests don’t want you to make outside assumptions or reframe situations, and you should default to using strict and as-literal-as-possible interpretations of questions”.