Comment by danielvaughn 3 days ago
I don’t see why it would select for fakers or cheaters. I’m totally fine with a job not ending well, but if you leave it as an innuendo like that without explaining, it makes me wonder why it went bad. Makes it sound like you got fired or something, or that you don’t take it seriously.
So once again, I’m not advocating for games or denying reality. I’m simply advocating for as much clarity as is feasible.
Let’s take your example - boss has an affair with a coworker, you speak up about it, then you get the boot and sign an NDA. In that scenario, I’d probably say something like the following:
“There was an interpersonal incident that was out of my control, and unfortunately I’m not legally allowed to speak about it in detail. What I can say is that I learned how important it is to stand up for what’s right even if it comes at a personal cost.”
This isn’t playing a game, it’s having empathy for the person sitting across the table from you. They have to make a decision on very limited information, and you’re trying to help them make that decision. If I were to just say “hehe let’s just say that something crazy went down, and I’m out of a job.” Well technically I told the truth, but I certainly didn’t help the interviewer make their assessment.
You helped me understand a position I never wrapped my head around before. Thank you!
I've never made a decision on few points of information, often I know researchers or their output for years before we interact, so it makes sense I don't have to care what language they use as this is a low correlation signal on their output.
>Makes it sound like you got fired or something, or that you don’t take it seriously.
My background in academia colors me but the level of office politics some describe in the private sector genuinely sounds like a middle school drama club at times. I've personally witnessed incredibly talented individuals at FAANG companies get the boot for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with their competence. Think messy personal dynamics, bosses having affairs with coworkers aiming for a position.
It makes me wonder about this ingrained necessity for pretense and obfuscation in private sector communication. Why the need to constantly play these games as if acknowledging reality is somehow detrimental? In academia, while not devoid of its own issues, the selection process for students at least attempts to prioritize merit and potential. The idea that some of the most brilliant minds I've encountered might be filtered out by arbitrary corporate "standards," while incapable but politically savvy individuals thrive, seems counterproductive.