2 ms·

Fair points, but we do disagree, I think. The "worst" part of the question is the worst part. I talk to people about "one" weakness. I also ask for how they ar

by ruggeri 14y ago

Fair points, but we do disagree, I think. The "worst" part of the question is the worst part. I talk to people about "one" weakness. I also ask for how they are trying to improve, which is actually the key part of the question to me. This is not intended as a pressure question. The point is not to learn about a weakness so I can disqualify an applicant. If people ask this question in the hopes that an applicant will incriminate himself, they're doing it (interviewing) wrong. I think this misperception about the intent of the question is what drives a lot of the fuss about it. I think an interview process that is focused on filtering only people who aren't bad enough to obviously reject is going to net a company a lot of bad hires. You're right, plausible lying can be difficult to distinguish from truth. But the kind of hire I'd like to make is one who can speak fluently and with clear honesty about an area where he/she would like to improve. To your last point: really don't think this is fair. If an applicant isn't comfortable with discussing a single weakness without feeling totally compromised, then I'm truly sorry, but their poor self-esteem is likely to get in the way of co-workers being honest with them. I say that as someone not characterized with excessively high self-esteem.

alexqgb 14y ago
I hate to point this out, but you just asked "Why do people hate the greatest weakness question?" after scrolling through a long and and very reasonable list of reasons why people hate this question. You also said people who don't answer the question directly are lazy and dishonest. Now I must ask, do you list a glaring disinterest in the perspectives of others among your own weaknesses? If not, does that make you lazy and dishonest?
- ruggeri 14y ago
  > Now I must ask, do you list a glaring disinterest in the perspectives of others among your own weaknesses? If not, does that make you lazy and dishonest? This this really bugs me. You needn't ask at all; it was your choice to make an ad hominem attack. We merely disagree about the utility of an interview question; I think it's revealing and you don't. You're offended because I've said that I think failing to answer this question well may be indicative of personal flaws. That's the position of anyone who uses this question, not an attack on any poster here, most of whom disagree with me. If you want to sit in an echo chamber, go somewhere else. Edit: Not sure why I've been downvoted. Feel like this was a pretty moderate response to someone who directly and personally insulted me.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    Easy, tiger. My point is that anyone who thinks this question is a fair and reliable way to suss out character flaws should think twice. Again, what you did (asking a question when the answers were right in front of you) indicated that you neither knew or cared enough to actually read what others were saying. I promise you, this is not a good look. Disagreeing with the answers is one thing. But behaving as though they don't even exist is another. And given what we're discussing, this obliviousness is entirely relevant to the conversation in that it demonstrates that people aren't necessarily aware of their own shortcomings, at least not to the point where they can enumerate them crisply, completely, and professionally. Even a modicum of self-awareness (which you seem to lack) should make this clear. And no, this observation doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack. Were the personal factor irrelevant (e.g. "How could we trust you with the company's finances? You're a woman!") then it would be. But that's because it introduces a logical fallacy (thinking women, by their nature, can't handle finance), not because it's disparaging. There's no rule of debate that says people can't say things that are true simply because it could cause others to take offense. As long as things they're saying are accurate and relevant, they're fair. That's why saying "We can't trust you with the company's finances. You're a convicted embezzler!" is not an ad hominem attack, even though a person's character is clearly the subject. Given the circumstance, character is entirely relevant. Indeed, it would be illogical NOT to mention it. Now, it should be clear that there is nothing irrelevant about an overlooked weakness that exists in a speaker who is busy arguing that people who are unprepared to discuss their weaknesses are either lazy or dishonest. Obviously, you'd be unprepared to discuss your own weakness if you needed to, and not because you're lazy or dishonest. It's because you're human, just like the rest of us. The problem with humans is that a lot of them are stupid. They ask stupid questions and draw stupid conclusions from the answers they receive. Smart people learn to identify the stupid ones fairly swiftly, and after having been burned by stupidity, they learn to evade it when necessary. Few questions telegraph stupidity more reliably that "Tell me about your weakness?" You may think it's a great question, but as we've seen, you rank fairly low on the self-awareness scale and your idiotic judgements about people who are uncomfortable with it ("Lazy unprepared liar!") just confirms smart people's deepest fears about what goes on inside the heads of people who think this question is a great way to get reliable information.

by ruggeri 14y ago

alexqgb 14y ago

I hate to point this out, but you just asked "Why do people hate the greatest weakness question?" after scrolling through a long and and very reasonable list of reasons why people hate this question. You also said people who don't answer the question directly are lazy and dishonest. Now I must ask, do you list a glaring disinterest in the perspectives of others among your own weaknesses? If not, does that make you lazy and dishonest?

ruggeri 14y ago
> Now I must ask, do you list a glaring disinterest in the perspectives of others among your own weaknesses? If not, does that make you lazy and dishonest? This this really bugs me. You needn't ask at all; it was your choice to make an ad hominem attack. We merely disagree about the utility of an interview question; I think it's revealing and you don't. You're offended because I've said that I think failing to answer this question well may be indicative of personal flaws. That's the position of anyone who uses this question, not an attack on any poster here, most of whom disagree with me. If you want to sit in an echo chamber, go somewhere else. Edit: Not sure why I've been downvoted. Feel like this was a pretty moderate response to someone who directly and personally insulted me.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Easy, tiger. My point is that anyone who thinks this question is a fair and reliable way to suss out character flaws should think twice. Again, what you did (asking a question when the answers were right in front of you) indicated that you neither knew or cared enough to actually read what others were saying. I promise you, this is not a good look. Disagreeing with the answers is one thing. But behaving as though they don't even exist is another. And given what we're discussing, this obliviousness is entirely relevant to the conversation in that it demonstrates that people aren't necessarily aware of their own shortcomings, at least not to the point where they can enumerate them crisply, completely, and professionally. Even a modicum of self-awareness (which you seem to lack) should make this clear. And no, this observation doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack. Were the personal factor irrelevant (e.g. "How could we trust you with the company's finances? You're a woman!") then it would be. But that's because it introduces a logical fallacy (thinking women, by their nature, can't handle finance), not because it's disparaging. There's no rule of debate that says people can't say things that are true simply because it could cause others to take offense. As long as things they're saying are accurate and relevant, they're fair. That's why saying "We can't trust you with the company's finances. You're a convicted embezzler!" is not an ad hominem attack, even though a person's character is clearly the subject. Given the circumstance, character is entirely relevant. Indeed, it would be illogical NOT to mention it. Now, it should be clear that there is nothing irrelevant about an overlooked weakness that exists in a speaker who is busy arguing that people who are unprepared to discuss their weaknesses are either lazy or dishonest. Obviously, you'd be unprepared to discuss your own weakness if you needed to, and not because you're lazy or dishonest. It's because you're human, just like the rest of us. The problem with humans is that a lot of them are stupid. They ask stupid questions and draw stupid conclusions from the answers they receive. Smart people learn to identify the stupid ones fairly swiftly, and after having been burned by stupidity, they learn to evade it when necessary. Few questions telegraph stupidity more reliably that "Tell me about your weakness?" You may think it's a great question, but as we've seen, you rank fairly low on the self-awareness scale and your idiotic judgements about people who are uncomfortable with it ("Lazy unprepared liar!") just confirms smart people's deepest fears about what goes on inside the heads of people who think this question is a great way to get reliable information.