5 ms·

It would seem like this doesn't actually buy you very much, because presumably the same places that would exclude your resume because of an ageist bias, would a

It would seem like this doesn't actually buy you very much, because presumably the same places that would exclude your resume because of an ageist bias, would also pass on you after interviewing you (in which case lying about your graduation dates just causes you to have to sit through more interviews with places that won't hire you). I guess the assumption is that you might be able to "win them over" in person, assuming you get past the first interview screen? I do find myself having to try very hard to ignore my "experience bias" when hiring infosec folks. My first inclination after seeing a resume from someone with "25 years of information security experience" is to cringe (Oh good, this person has spent 20 years doing C&A's, which are fundamentally useless).

michaelochurch 14y ago
It would seem like this doesn't actually buy you very much, because presumably the same places that would exclude your resume because of an ageist bias, would also pass on you after interviewing you Disagree. If you transform your career story from VP-at-48 to VP-at-43, your social status changes and the interview is a completely different conversation. Lying about actual skill is unethical, but people who are able to improve their social status by exploiting human shallowness, in my opinion, deserve everything they can gain in doing so.
- m0nastic 14y ago
  I guess I don't see how lying about this can inherently not also cause you to have to lie about other things. By which I mean, changing your resume from VP-at-48 to VP-at-43 either means that you're lying about how long you've been a VP (which is definitely now lying about experience/skill), or it means you're just moving all of your work experience up a sliding scale to appear younger; in which case you are now potentially lying about your work/experience/schooling as well, as tying that experience to a point in time is more than just human shallowness. For example, let's say I was a web developer in the mid-nineties, but I decide to change that on my resume to appear more recent (to make myself seem younger). I'd argue that being a web developer in the mid-nineties is pretty far removed from being a web developer currently (so at what point does it become disingenuous...is sliding things ahead a few years ok? more than 5?) This all seems too "The Secret of My Success" for my liking.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Can you imagine how unbelievably stupid and venal and untrustworthy you look when it's discovered that you deliberately lied about the timeline of your career? It's batshit that anyone would even consider it.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    I probably wouldn't consider it. When it comes to how people react to injustice, shallowness, stupidity (such as age discrimination) there are exploders and exploiters. Exploiters figure out how to use peoples' superficiality, stupidity, and moral deficiency to their benefit. Exploders get angry and try to rally the good to the cause-- they're the whistleblowers. I'm an exploder, not an exploiter. It's my nature. I'm way too honest and blunt to be an exploiter. (Fuck, here I am being honest about the fact that I don't think dishonestly is always bad and that for many minor forms of it, even though I could never pull them off myself, I'm ethically OK with it.) But ask your local Googler whether I'd recommend whistleblowing as a career move. In movies, people like exploders and whistleblowers, but in real life, people think of exploders as a pain in the ass (killing the messenger) while exploiters get ahead. I used to think that exploiters were all unethical, but I've come to realize that some people can be exploiters without being harmful or unethical.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Whether you or I would do it or not, it's virtually guaranteed that someone within your business circle has. Do you really care that they did?
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      I'll jump in and say yes. I'd never trust someone who lies to get ahead, and I'd make sure they knew it. It's sad that some here seem to think honesty is too high a bar; it's really not.
      - genwin 14y ago
        So which is it?: are you lucky enough to live in a state without sales tax, or do you pay your state's use taxes promptly when you buy stuff online?
- lollerpops 14y ago
  Cross your fingers and hope your new employer doesn't do the most basic of basic background checks.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    I've never lied in a job search, so I don't think I have anything to worry about. First, I've never needed to do so and, second, I wouldn't perform well under that kind of cognitive load. For someone with my makeup, that style of career repair has little upside and adds a lot of risk. So it's extremely unwise. As I said above, I'm an exploder, not an exploiter. I get angry at a rigged game and prefer to expose the worst players, rather than joining them. Call it pathological honesty. I also know that exploiters tend to do better at the corporate-ladder game than we exploders do, and I don't think all exploiters are unethical or bad people. On average, exploders are better people than exploiters, but a decent person who's an exploiter has a much better shot at getting ahead. If someone took credit for my accomplishment and it damaged by career, I'd be angry and want to get him back. I'd be incensed if he lied about something material (such as having a skill he lacked) and I hired him, and I'd probably fire him. If he lied about his age or family connections and got ahead on account of the charlatanry, well... it's not good, but I'd rather that he use victimless deceptions instead of the kind that actually hurt people.

michaelochurch 14y ago

It would seem like this doesn't actually buy you very much, because presumably the same places that would exclude your resume because of an ageist bias, would also pass on you after interviewing you Disagree. If you transform your career story from VP-at-48 to VP-at-43, your social status changes and the interview is a completely different conversation. Lying about actual skill is unethical, but people who are able to improve their social status by exploiting human shallowness, in my opinion, deserve everything they can gain in doing so.

m0nastic 14y ago
I guess I don't see how lying about this can inherently not also cause you to have to lie about other things. By which I mean, changing your resume from VP-at-48 to VP-at-43 either means that you're lying about how long you've been a VP (which is definitely now lying about experience/skill), or it means you're just moving all of your work experience up a sliding scale to appear younger; in which case you are now potentially lying about your work/experience/schooling as well, as tying that experience to a point in time is more than just human shallowness. For example, let's say I was a web developer in the mid-nineties, but I decide to change that on my resume to appear more recent (to make myself seem younger). I'd argue that being a web developer in the mid-nineties is pretty far removed from being a web developer currently (so at what point does it become disingenuous...is sliding things ahead a few years ok? more than 5?) This all seems too "The Secret of My Success" for my liking.
tptacek 14y ago
Can you imagine how unbelievably stupid and venal and untrustworthy you look when it's discovered that you deliberately lied about the timeline of your career? It's batshit that anyone would even consider it.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I probably wouldn't consider it. When it comes to how people react to injustice, shallowness, stupidity (such as age discrimination) there are exploders and exploiters. Exploiters figure out how to use peoples' superficiality, stupidity, and moral deficiency to their benefit. Exploders get angry and try to rally the good to the cause-- they're the whistleblowers. I'm an exploder, not an exploiter. It's my nature. I'm way too honest and blunt to be an exploiter. (Fuck, here I am being honest about the fact that I don't think dishonestly is always bad and that for many minor forms of it, even though I could never pull them off myself, I'm ethically OK with it.) But ask your local Googler whether I'd recommend whistleblowing as a career move. In movies, people like exploders and whistleblowers, but in real life, people think of exploders as a pain in the ass (killing the messenger) while exploiters get ahead. I used to think that exploiters were all unethical, but I've come to realize that some people can be exploiters without being harmful or unethical.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Whether you or I would do it or not, it's virtually guaranteed that someone within your business circle has. Do you really care that they did?
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    I'll jump in and say yes. I'd never trust someone who lies to get ahead, and I'd make sure they knew it. It's sad that some here seem to think honesty is too high a bar; it's really not.
    - genwin 14y ago
      So which is it?: are you lucky enough to live in a state without sales tax, or do you pay your state's use taxes promptly when you buy stuff online?
lollerpops 14y ago
Cross your fingers and hope your new employer doesn't do the most basic of basic background checks.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I've never lied in a job search, so I don't think I have anything to worry about. First, I've never needed to do so and, second, I wouldn't perform well under that kind of cognitive load. For someone with my makeup, that style of career repair has little upside and adds a lot of risk. So it's extremely unwise. As I said above, I'm an exploder, not an exploiter. I get angry at a rigged game and prefer to expose the worst players, rather than joining them. Call it pathological honesty. I also know that exploiters tend to do better at the corporate-ladder game than we exploders do, and I don't think all exploiters are unethical or bad people. On average, exploders are better people than exploiters, but a decent person who's an exploiter has a much better shot at getting ahead. If someone took credit for my accomplishment and it damaged by career, I'd be angry and want to get him back. I'd be incensed if he lied about something material (such as having a skill he lacked) and I hired him, and I'd probably fire him. If he lied about his age or family connections and got ahead on account of the charlatanry, well... it's not good, but I'd rather that he use victimless deceptions instead of the kind that actually hurt people.