> its a test of EQ, if a simple question about past conflicts makes you this defensive then its exactly the type of thing it was meant to screen for.
You see, to do the behavioral interview properly the interviewer must have a psychological degree and a special training relating to these interviews. The hiring interview is a special situation for an interviewee, they act not like they do in a normal working circumstances. For example they tend to overthink questions, searching for the best answer that will be marked by the interviewer as a good answer. They incentivized to lie, because it is easy to find these questions in advance and to invent the best answers out, and no one ever will find out that it was a lie. So, the interviewer asked some questions and got some learned answers, how can they now interpret these answers and say something about the personality traits of the interviewee?
> I’d encourage OP to put some thought into this part for their own sake. You don’t need to make everyone feel better but if you show up with the attitude that you’re never wrong, then nobody will want to work with you. I know I don’t.
You advice is probably misplaced. The article is not a part of a job interview. So their EQ didn't show any failures, they wanted to rant and they had chosen the right place to do it. If he ranted at the interview, I'd agree that he needs to work on their EQ or self-control or something.
The comments here is full of diagnoses for the author, but I'm really reluctant to form any opinions about the author mind. It is just one article, that was probably written in a single take. What you see may be not the persistent personal traits, but situational and temporary state of mind. The article has a theme and the author provides examples to his points, and do you think he should provide examples against his points? Again: if they were writing a scientific paper, I would expect them to go through all the evidence, and to do it much more rigorous, but it is just the fucking blog post. Yes a long one, but still the blog post.
And on this basis I'd encourage the most commenters in the thread to work on their EQ. More specifically to read about Fundamental Attribution Error. People are largely driven by the situation they are in, but observers interpret behavior mainly in terms of enduring personal traits.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, lots to think about. I reread the whole post and feel less strongly about my previous comments. Overall the original post gives me a lot to think about and I’m grateful for that.
You see, to do the behavioral interview properly the interviewer must have a psychological degree and a special training relating to these interviews. The hiring interview is a special situation for an interviewee, they act not like they do in a normal working circumstances. For example they tend to overthink questions, searching for the best answer that will be marked by the interviewer as a good answer. They incentivized to lie, because it is easy to find these questions in advance and to invent the best answers out, and no one ever will find out that it was a lie. So, the interviewer asked some questions and got some learned answers, how can they now interpret these answers and say something about the personality traits of the interviewee?
> I’d encourage OP to put some thought into this part for their own sake. You don’t need to make everyone feel better but if you show up with the attitude that you’re never wrong, then nobody will want to work with you. I know I don’t.
You advice is probably misplaced. The article is not a part of a job interview. So their EQ didn't show any failures, they wanted to rant and they had chosen the right place to do it. If he ranted at the interview, I'd agree that he needs to work on their EQ or self-control or something.
The comments here is full of diagnoses for the author, but I'm really reluctant to form any opinions about the author mind. It is just one article, that was probably written in a single take. What you see may be not the persistent personal traits, but situational and temporary state of mind. The article has a theme and the author provides examples to his points, and do you think he should provide examples against his points? Again: if they were writing a scientific paper, I would expect them to go through all the evidence, and to do it much more rigorous, but it is just the fucking blog post. Yes a long one, but still the blog post.
And on this basis I'd encourage the most commenters in the thread to work on their EQ. More specifically to read about Fundamental Attribution Error. People are largely driven by the situation they are in, but observers interpret behavior mainly in terms of enduring personal traits.