5 ms·
You are ignoring the data. Person after person says they do fine in the job, yet have trouble with interviews. I've presented in rooms where the lowest rankin
by RogerL 11y ago
You are ignoring the data.
Person after person says they do fine in the job, yet have trouble with interviews.
I've presented in rooms where the lowest ranking officer was a colonel, and most were important people at the Pentagon. No freeze up, easy peasy, because I know what the hell I'm talking about and because I know I'm not going to be judged on some bullshit evaluation. (re: "x<<8 from above). Interviews are more a crap shoot. I mostly get offers, but sometimes just utterly choke. More importantly, I usually feel miserable after.
Don't make up theoretical situations when you have real, empirical data, please.
- x0x0 11y agoa handful of self-reported, potentially biased posts is not data. It's barely even anecdata.
- gjm11 11y agoWhat data am I ignoring, and how do you know? I made no comment on what kind of interview works best. I merely observed -- what is certainly true -- that sometimes "defusing the bomb" situations actually do come up in real life, where everything is at stake and you have to work under very severe time pressure. Do you disagree that such situations sometimes arise in real life? If not -- if your point is that that isn't necessarily a good reason for interviews to involve such situations -- then I think we are in violent agreement. I am not arguing for defusing-the-bomb interviews. I just don't think it's quite right to say that in real life you never have to defuse a bomb.
- foobarqux 11y agoSee my other comment but I think the differences are the immediacy of the time pressure, the sophistication of the thinking required and the all-or-nothing outcome.