Having been on the end of circumstances you don’t control, it’s debilitating. Nothing you do makes any difference. But at the same time if you don’t do anything, things will get worse.
I’ll comment a bit on the article, and then give some wider comments based on my experience.
Before, it was enough to have something you can demonstrate. To have skill, to have experience. Now, it does not matter.
I think skills and experience almost always matter, unless you’re in a 100% corrupt / nepotism area. This comment sounds like despair to me, not an accurate description of the job market.
It is solely a game of referral
I disagree again, but referral does matter a lot. Anyone who’s posted a job in the last 15 years can tell you why.
Post: We’re looking for network engineers familiar with python, here are details of our needs…
Responses: 90% of the resumes are about something else. Javascript, web, documentation, etc. 90% of the remaining resumes are people who are vaguely close, but their resumes don’t tell you what they actually did.
So you bring in the remainder for interviews, and 75% can’t answer the simplest question about past projects. Answers include “I dunno what the software did, I just implemented pages 60 through 65 of the spec”. Many of the remainder have poor interpersonal skills (ignoring the female interviewer, not showering, talking forever, giving answers unrelated to the question, etc.), or they can’t answer the simplest technical questions about their “skills area”.
Eventually you find someone who seems good. So you give them an offer, and a trial period. Thank the gods for the trial period, because about many don’t actually have the skills they claimed to have. And others say things like “Well, I know you told me to do X, but I didn’t understand what you meant, so I just did Y instead”. Or, “Well, I know you told me to do X, but I didn’t think it would work, so I did Y instead”. Did they ask clarifying questions? Did they volunteer that they were delivering something other than what was asked? No. So they get canned a month into the trial period.
Or, as an employer, I can get told by a friend I trust “Hey, this person is good, and should fit into your company. I’ve worked with them before, and can vouch for them”. The success rate there is about 90%.
For the the author, I’m sorry you feel this way, but that’s the reality of the other end of the hiring process.
On a personal note, when I started looking for work after a graduate degree, I had a weird discussion with another graduate student:
Him: I've only gotten 5 job interviews, how did you do?Me: Hmm, I've had 5 job interviews too.Him: What! How many resumes did you send out? I sent out 150!
Me: Uh... I sent out 15?
The root cause was that he had one resume / cover letter, and spammed the same thing to everyone. When the employer looked at that resume they saw that he wanted a job, he didn’t want this job.
In contrast, I read the job posting, and reworked my resume for every single posting. I removed things which weren’t relevant. I used words from the posting in my resume. I tried to send a message of OMG, my entire life I’ve been working towards getting this job!
The results spoke for themselves.
I eventually got a job by answering a classified ad in the newspaper (yes, I’m old), but that doesn’t invalidate my approach. Since then, almost every job I’ve gotten after that was either (a) by word of mouth, or (b) because they found me, and wanted me specifically.
So I understand the frustration and burnout. As an employee, I couldn’t take it, so I started my own business. As an employer, I’m shocked at just how terrible most people are at their jobs. All I want is someone who shows up one time, is communicative, and is reasonably competent. That requirement rules out about 90% of the people who have relevant skills.
The root cause was that he had one resume / cover letter, and spammed the same thing to everyone. When the employer looked at that resume they saw that he wanted a job, he didn’t want this job.
In contrast, I read the job posting, and reworked my resume for every single posting. I removed things which weren’t relevant. I used words from the posting in my resume. I tried to send a message of OMG, my entire life I’ve been working towards getting this job!
Jobs one genuinely wants are extremely rare, and tailoring a CV and a cover letter to pretend otherwise is both an act of self-harm and a lie.
What’s cynical is thinking that it’s reasonable to “send a message of OMG, my entire life I’ve been working towards getting this job!” to a dozen different companies. You’re the one with “extremist and negative views about the world”.
Either your analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said (even though you claimed it did), and is therefore irrelevant to the conversation. Or, the analogy is directly relevant (see the root “analog”), and is evidence of an unreasonable characterization of what I said.
That’s a false dichotomy that betrays a complete lack of understanding of how analogies work and what their purpose is.
Obviously my analogy has something to do with what you said. That doesn’t mean I’m claiming you made death threats.
I’ve several times explained the analogy, including in the very comment you’re responding to, and you again, deftly dodge the points in my comment to hone in on something you can twist beyond even a semblance of reasonableness.
Your twistings of my words are reaching a level of ridiculousness that will soon compete with the guy in your own bizarre analogy, which is saying something.
It’s an analogy you made. You’re now saying it was wrong.
No, it’s not an analogy I made and I’m not saying the analogy I made was wrong. Again:
those two things, in isolation, are not analogous in any relevant way to my point.
(Are you reading my comments fully?)
Again, I wasn’t analogising your words, I was analogising the scenario; the comparison I was making was not between the exact words said, but the fact of misinterpretation and response to misinterpretation.
I imagined a scenario where someone’s words could have been misinterpreted. Any scenario like that would do, because the exact scenario is not what’s important, my point is about misinterpretation and someone’s response to being misinterpreted more broadly.
That’s how analogies work, some details are only there as background, not every detail has to match up isomorphically 1:1 except in the most perfect analogies.
Of course, this can sometimes lead to misunderstandings, but again, I explicitly outlined the point of the analogy, so it’s not difficult to understand which parents were relevant and which were background.
Your claim at this point that I was claiming what you said was analogous to making death threats — they are in some trivial irrelevant senses, such as that they’re both words, but that’s not the point of the analogy, so I wasn’t even claiming that — is beyond lack of charity.
Can you actually respond to at least the main point I made?:
Here, the response “why’re you defending a thief?” implies that, even had the person’s interpretation that I was actually saying I was about to beat this guy up been correct, they’d still have been wrong to object.
I will emphasise the point with this question because you clearly need help: how is that not analogous to what you did?. I wish I could increase the font size, but seems Lobste.rs doesn’t allow it.
Remember, your response was:
[original context: Jobs one genuinely wants are extremely rare, and] tailoring a CV and a cover letter to pretend otherwise is both an act of self-harm and a lie.
That is a deeply cynical and fatalistic world view. I’m sorry you have such an extremist and negative views about the world.
This doesn’t sound like someone who was misinterpreted and never meant to say that you should tailor your CV and cover letter to “pretend” you “genuinely” want a job you don’t “genuinely” want.
It sounds like you’re saying that it’s a deeply cynical and fatalistic worldview to say that one shouldn’t pretend to “genuinely” want jobs they don’t “genuinely” want.
Because that’s the “worldview” the other person is advancing in the part you’re quoting; regardless of whether you said X or not, they’re saying X is bad, and your response is that the view “X is bad” is cynical and fatalistic and so on.
In other words, it sounds like you’re saying that one should “pretend” that they “genuinely” want jobs which they, in reality, don’t “genuinely” want.
Do you see the analogue between the two scenarios, now? Or are you now going to claim that I was saying you were playing video games?
Minor point, I want to amend this part slightly as well for maximum clarity (something I’d never usually bother with, since I think it’s clear enough, but I can’t fathom how hard you’re finding it to understand the most basic stuff):
regardless of whether you said X or not, they’re saying X is bad, and your response is that the view “X is bad” is cynical and fatalistic and so on.
to this (added parts emphasised):
regardless of whether you said X or not, they’re saying X is bad, thus they’re implying you said X, and your response, instead of “I never said X”, is that the view “X is bad” is cynical and fatalistic and so on.
Again, I wasn’t analogising your words, I was analogising the scenario;
Yes. When you claim that screaming invective is analogous to “edit a CV”, you should understand that the analogy is wrong. It’s either deliberately deceptive, or it lacks awareness that the two situations are entirely different.
Obviously my analogy has something to do with what you said. That doesn’t mean I’m claiming you made death threats.
Then why make a false analogy?
“Hey, I’m not calling you a PDF file. I’m just asking questions about what you do with kids”.
Anyone who’s above board doesn’t come up with an insane and abusive analogy, and then when caught… back away from it. “Oh no, my analogy didn’t actually say that your comments were the same as screaming invective. I just meant to say I reacted to them the same as screaming invective. And, that reacting that way to your comments is perfectly normal.”
It’s not. No rational person would be shocked and horrified at the thought of editing a CV to make yourself look better. No rational person would draw an analogy between editing a CV, and screaming invective.
Do you see the analogue between the two scenarios, now?
I understand that the analogy is intended to explain how someone would have a strong reaction to an innocuous statement.
Do you understand that the strong reaction has nothing whatsoever to do with the original statement?
Do you understand that it’s not a normal reaction to be shocked and horrified when someone says “edit a CV to make yourself look good”? Do you understand that such edits are not normally interpreted as “self harm”?
Do you understand that (for example) when someone calls you an asshole, a response of “I’m sorry you feel that way” is not interpreted by normal people as an admission that the accusation is true? And that most normal people interpret that response as a polite way of calling the accuser mentally ill?
Again, I wasn’t analogising your words, I was analogising the scenario;
Yes. When you claim that screaming invective is analogous to “edit a CV”, you should understand that the analogy is wrong.
You literally quoted a part of my message that responds to your objection, yet your response to it is to reraise the objection.
Again, I wasn’t analogising your words, I was analogising the scenario. I repeat, “those two things, in isolation, are not analogous in any relevant way to my point”.
Do you understand what “in isolation” means? Why do you continually deliberately try to misrepresent me? I’ve already explained that isolating the two statements is a strawman of my analogy. Instead of addressing that, you continue to play dumb and act like I analogised the two statements in isolation.
Do you understand, as I’ve said, that not every detail of an analogy has to match up 1:1 isomorphically? You didn’t respond to this point.
It’s either deliberately deceptive, or it lacks awareness that the two situations are entirely different.
Sure, just like browsing Lobste.rs is entirely different to playing a video game. You understand that, right?
Or do you think I was claiming that you were playing a video game? You didn’t respond to this point.
I wasn’t analogising playing video games to browsing Lobste.rs, you understand that, right? Or are you going to completely ignore this part of my comment and play dumb again?
I understand that the analogy is intended to explain how someone would have a strong reaction to an innocuous statement.
No, that’s not the intention. I’ve explained the point of the analogy painstakingly step by step, are you even reading my comments?
Do you understand that the strong reaction has nothing whatsoever to do with the original statement?
Oh, yeah? Then explain this (don’t run this time), and let’s go step by step. Step one:
Can you actually respond to at least the main point I made?:
Here, the response “why’re you defending a thief?” implies that, even had the person’s interpretation that I was actually saying I was about to beat this guy up been correct, they’d still have been wrong to object.
Here, the person responding in a way that implies that, even had the person’s interpretation been correct, they’d still have been wrong to object.
Step two: you responded in a way that implied that, even had @hjvt’s interpretation been correct, they’d still have been wrong to object.
Remember, your response was:
[original context: Jobs one genuinely wants are extremely rare, and] tailoring a CV and a cover letter to pretend otherwise is both an act of self-harm and a lie.
That is a deeply cynical and fatalistic world view. I’m sorry you have such an extremist and negative views about the world.
This doesn’t sound like someone who was misinterpreted and never meant to say that you should tailor your CV and cover letter to “pretend” you “genuinely” want a job you don’t “genuinely” want.
It sounds like you’re saying that it’s a deeply cynical and fatalistic worldview to say that one shouldn’t pretend to “genuinely” want jobs they don’t “genuinely” want.
Because that’s the “worldview” the other person is advancing in the part you’re quoting; regardless of whether you said X or not, they’re saying X is bad, and your response is that the view “X is bad” is cynical and fatalistic and so on.
In other words, it sounds like you’re saying that one should “pretend” that they “genuinely” want jobs which they, in reality, don’t “genuinely” want.
Conclusion: what you did was analogous to what the guy in the video game analogy did. Not in every detail, not in the fact that you were playing video games, nor in the fact that you were playing any type of game, nor even in the fact that you were looking at a screen — that part happens to be a common feature, but it’s not relevant to the point.
I’ve explained this parallel several times now, and honestly, it’s no surprise you keep evading it. It perfectly demonstrates that not only did you not tell @hjvt they misinterpreted you, you were criticising their criticism of something you claim to have never said. Caught in 4K!
You can’t respond to it, that’s why you keep avoiding responding to it. That’s also why you keep repeatedly twisting my words beyond any reasonable reading, repeating the same points as if they weren’t already addressed, and so on.
Prove me wrong! Actually respond to the point instead of running once again! Give us the innocuous explanation that sheds new light on you yourself accepting @hjvt’s interpretation!
Obviously my analogy has something to do with what you said. That doesn’t mean I’m claiming you made death threats.
Then why make a false analogy?
I didn’t. See above!
Anyone who’s above board doesn’t come up with an insane and abusive analogy
The only abuse in this thread is your gaslighting. And I have never used that word to describe a person’s behaviour before in my life. I hate how overused it is, and how little charity is often extended.
and then when caught… back away from it.
I never backed away from anything, I’ve repeatedly said you’ve misrepresented me.
But my initial charity of accepting your claim that I’d misinterpreted you isn’t being paid back in kind, and I’m starting to realise now that, in fact, you’re the one backing away from your initial words to @hjvt.
Of course, when you’re the type of person to do that, you’re going to assume anyone else who protests that you’ve misrepresented them is “backing away” from their statements. What makes it ridiculous at this point isn’t the rank hypocrisy, it’s the worsening of the hypocrisy by insisting on your misrepresentation despite repeated explanations of how you’re misrepresenting me
while refusing to engage with the point of commonality between you and the video game player that I’ve repeatedly pointed out, which is, ironically, or aptly given the hypocrisy, that you responded to an alleged misinterpretation by adopting the stance that you were allegedly misinterpreted as having taken.
“Oh no, my analogy didn’t actually say that your comments were the same as screaming invective. I just meant to say I reacted to them the same as screaming invective. And, that reacting that way to your comments is perfectly normal.”
No, that’s not what I “meant to say”, the point of that part of the analogy is that both words were misinterpreted. The guy in the analogy wasn’t making a real threat.
(And my reaction to your comments came after you responded to the misinterpretation, so I’m not even in the analogy; in the analogy, you’re the video game player, @hjvt’s the one responding to you.)
You can argue that the misinterpretation of the guy in the analogy was more warranted, but that’s not the question the analogy is trying to settle, so it makes no difference, and makes no sense to fight over who gets to beg the question on that.
The only point of him being misinterpreted, whether you think it was a warranted misinterpretation or not, is to set up the analogy for its culmination, the part where he responds to the misinterpretation.
And he responds to it the same way you did, by adopting the stance that he was misinterpreted as having taken.
Do you understand, as I’ve said, that not every detail of an analogy has to match up 1:1 isomorphically?
Of course. But it’s completely dishonest to use “screaming invective” as an analogy to comment of “edit a text file”. You’re (again) ignoring that point of my reply.
You could say “Hey, as an analogy, if someone punches me in the face, I fight back”. And then spend a dozen or more messages wondering why I don’t agree that the analogy is in any way relevant to the comment at hand.
This doesn’t sound like someone who was misinterpreted and never meant to say that you should tailor your CV and cover letter to “pretend” you “genuinely” want a job you don’t “genuinely” want.
Let me be perfectly clear: When I say “when you’re applying for a job, you should edit your CV to make yourself look good”, it is simply not possible to rationally conclude that what I really meant was that people should “pretend” to that you “genuinely” want a job you don’t “genuinely” want.
Your entire argument is based on reading things into my comments.
Conclusion: what you did was analogous to what the guy in the video game analogy did.
Absolutely not. No reasonable person would conclude that “edit a CV” was in any way analogous to “screaming invective”. That analogy is false, disingenuous, and lying.
The point of that part of the analogy is that both words were misinterpreted. The guy in the analogy wasn’t making a real threat.
The analogy was that screaming invective was interpreted honestly by the listener, and that the listener was rightly shocked and horrified by the screaming invective. And then only after finding out the real cause of the issue, the listener understood that the screaming invective wasn’t real.
That analogy is utterly irrelevant to the real case here. There is simply no possible way for anyone rational to read what I wrote, and be shocked and horrified by it.
The reading of my comments as intending “self harm”, or that people should “pretending” to want a job, or (bizarrely) that people should apply to a job they don’t “genuinely” want are not supported by any facts, logic, or reason.
And you haven’t explained. How do you get from my post to someone “pretending”? Or that I was advocating that people should apply to a job that they don’t want.
The only explanation you’ve given is an analogy which paints me in a very bad light. But honestly (wink wink) you didn’t really intend to paint me in a bad light. The analogy of me screaming like a lunatic is intended only to show how you respond to lunatics, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my statements.
And he responds to it the same way you did, by adopting the stance that he was misinterpreted as having taken.
To go with your analogy, if you heard that screaming invective from the video game player, and you then asked him “Why are you screaming the N word?”, he would respond that no, he wasn’t saying that, and no reasonable person would conclude that from what he said.
I considered that it might be exaggeration, but companies demanding extreme(/disproportionate/unreasonable) levels of devotion is a real thing that people often complain about, so even if literally “working your whole life towards it” is exaggeration, I still read it as trying to demonstrate a level of desire for the job that’s incommensurate with the truth, because people actually do that.
Anyway, I found your other comment:
More charitably, I’ve exaggerated it here in order to make it memorable. You can rest assured that the resume did not contain “over the top” purple prose gushing about how I wanted to work for the company.
The practical (and real) goal is simple: Communicate to the employer that I had read the job posting, and had relevant skills.
Communicating to the employer that you’d read the job posting and had relevant skills have nothing to do with having a desire to work for the company; any level of desire, it’s a qualitative not quantitative difference, so saying it’s exaggeration doesn’t quite sound right to me.
Also, either way you meant it, the commenter clearly understood it as you “pretend”ing to “genuinely want” the job (which I would take as: would choose to do the work if not for needing the money to survive), and then called that lying and an act of self-harm, which you called deeply cynical and fatalistic.
Could you clarify that as well?, because to me, even if they misunderstood you and you didn’t intend in the sense of pretence, it’s still the case that such pretence would be lying and an act of self-harm, but you simply dismissed that out of hand as “deeply cynical”, “fatalistic”, “extremist”, and “negative”.
Their view that such pretence would be lying and an act of self-harm is so obviously the opposite of all of those adjectives to me that I can only assume you misspoke, or you interpret their words differently to me.
but companies demanding extreme(/disproportionate/unreasonable) levels of devotion is a real thing
Sure, but that’s not the point I was trying to make. I was hoping that people would read my comments as making a point for effect, not as a literal statement to abase yourself to the corporate gods.
I still read it as trying to demonstrate a level of desire for the job that’s incommensurate with the truth,
So when you show up at a job interview wearing a suit (or dress better than normal), is that a lie, too? Or are you trying to make a good impression?
… saying it’s exaggeration doesn’t quite sound right to me.
Well, it’s what I intended it to mean. And I do appreciate that your comments here are communicative, and charitable. That’s a lot nicer than the wide range of fantastical inventions I’ve seen.
the commenter clearly understood it as you “pretend”ing to “genuinely want” the job
I hope you understand that’s a negative interpretation of what I said. A positive interpretation is a much simpler trying to make a good impression, or trying to see things from someone elses view.
(and) such pretence would be lying and an act of self-harm,
Is it lying to tell the interviewer that you want the job? It is an act of self harm to phrase your resume using words from the job posting?
Such a response is deeply odd to me. Unlike some commenters, I don’t assume that prospective employers are evil bastards who want me to work for nothing. I expect that there will be a mutually beneficial exchange. If it isn’t beneficial to me, I’ll leave.
Their view that such pretence would be lying and an act of self-harm is so obviously the opposite of all of those adjectives to me …
This is the disconnect. I fail to see how putting yourself in a positive light is an act of self-harm. Calling a positive action “lying” or “self harm” does come across to me as a very negative interpretation of what I said.
If the original commenter interpreted my statements as shitting on prospective employees, and demanding that they abase / abuse themselves to get the job, then yes… such I agree that demanding such abuse is negative. But I would gently suggest that such an interpretation is not a charitable one. If anything, it’s extreme, and negative. Hence my describing it that way.
My $0.02 is that if I’m trying to get a job, I communicate that I understand the requirements, that I want the job, and I put myself in the best light. Yet a large number of other commenters seem to think that’s an insane / evil thing for anyone to do.
but companies demanding extreme(/disproportionate/unreasonable) levels of devotion is a real thing
Sure, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.
You’ve said that. I was trying to explain why:
a) your “exaggeration” is something too real and normalised by enough people that it doesn’t immediately come across as obvious exaggeration, and
b) even interpreting it as exaggeration doesn’t work, because the very act of communicating a higher level of desire for a job than you have, even if it’d be a reasonable, non-extreme, and proportionate level of desire to have for the job, just a level you don’t have, can still be a lie and an act of self-harm; I wouldn’t use such strong language myself, but I wouldn’t consider such an opinion to be extreme.
So when you show up at a job interview wearing a suit (or dress better than normal), is that a lie, too? Or are you trying to make a good impression?
Depends why you’re wearing a suit. Is it to fulfil some corporate dress code? Then, no, why would that be a lie? Unless it’s your intent to communicate a message that you know or believe to be opposite to reality, then wearing clothes you wouldn’t normally wear is not a lie.
For example, a police officer wears a uniform on the job, but doesn’t off the job. That uniform is meant to communicate something to the people around them, something that’s true, which is that they’re a police officer. A (non-officer) criminal might wear the same as a lie. The police officer doesn’t normally wear those clothes outside of the job, that doesn’t make it a lie.
As for dressing better than normal, it depends exactly. When you say “better than normal”, does that mean dressing to a standard that you wouldn’t at home, or that you wouldn’t when hanging out with your friends, or what? And the purpose and intent matters. You’ve not given enough information to judge. It can be a lie, or there can be some other reasonable explanation for that behaviour.
… saying it’s exaggeration doesn’t quite sound right to me.
Well, it’s what I intended it to mean.
Then you chose your words very poorly IMO, because even now with your clarification, I can’t look back at your original words and think, “oh, yeah, I see how they meant that”, I just look at it and think, “these words are very different from what they’re now saying they meant”.
“Communicate to the employer that I had read the job posting, and had relevant skills” has nothing to do with “communicate to the employer that I want the job”, irrespective of whether you’re communicating a reasonable level of desire or an extreme level of desire and also irrespective of whether the level of desire you’re communicating is truthful.
But, to reiterate, even interpreting it as exaggeration doesn’t work (see “b)” above).
I hope you understand that’s a negative interpretation of what I said. A positive interpretation is a much simpler trying to make a good impression, or trying to see things from someone elses view.
You saying it’s a negative interpretation of what you said doesn’t respond to my point. See where I said, “even if they misunderstood you” [emphasis added]? It was obvious from their comment how they interpreted your words, they attacked their negative interpretation of your words, and you, instead of saying, “hey, you misunderstood me”, call their rejection of their negative interpretation of your words extremist and negative.
It’s like if someone overhears me shouting “you took my stuff, I’m gonna beat you to a pulp for that” into my headset, and storms into my room shouting, “what the hell, that’s not okay!”, and instead of telling them, “what?, no, I’m playing a video game”, I go, “why’re you defending a thief?”. If that person ends up wondering whether I might think what I’m doing is okay even outside the context of a video game, I wouldn’t blame them.
Is it lying to tell the interviewer that you want the job?
I mean, it would be (a lie) if you didn’t (want the job) and it wouldn’t be (a lie) if you did (want the job). Is this supposed to be a difficult one? I genuinely don’t understand the point you’re making here.
Edit to add this paragraph: All these questions are beside the point. They don’t get us closer to understanding whether our reading of your original comment was truly uncharitable, because even if I say that no, it’s not a lie, it doesn’t answer whether we were unjustified in reading your original comment as meaning ‘pretend to desire the job a lot more than [you do / is reasonable]’ instead of meaning ‘truthfully say that you want the job’.
Unlike some commenters, I don’t assume that prospective employers are evil bastards who want me to work for nothing. I expect that there will be a mutually beneficial exchange. If it isn’t beneficial to me, I’ll leave.
I suspect how it usually happens is that the employer makes a reasonable choice to prefer candidates who are ‘excited about the mission’ or super concur with the ‘company values’ or other preferences, not requirements, but as the job market gets more competitive, more prospective employees start feeling like their only choice is to start, let’s say, ‘playing up’ their desire for the job.
Calling a positive action “lying” or “self harm” does come across to me as a very negative interpretation of what I said.
You didn’t say they had a “negative interpretation”, you said they had a “negative worldview”, knowing full well — unless you misinterpreted their comment, and it’s okay to admit so — that their “worldview” was an attack on something you didn’t say, so of course it comes across as if you’re saying it’s negative to even disagree with the strawman of you.
See the video game analogy above.
My $0.02 is that if I’m trying to get a job, I communicate that I understand the requirements, that I want the job, and I put myself in the best light. Yet a large number of other commenters seem to think that’s an insane / evil thing for anyone to do.
I doubt anyone here is saying it’s insane or evil to communicate that you understand the requirements, that you want the job, and to put yourself in the best (truthful) light.
I would submit that if a “large number of other commenters” had a seemingly uncharitable interpretation of your comment, then there might have been a problem with how you’re communicating, or at least, it could be improved.
And, frankly, looking back at your original words and how you say you intended them, I see an unresolvable (to my mind) disconnect for the reason “b)” that I outlined.
When people complain that a company wants cult members, not employees, they can be exaggerating the degree while still meaning that the company wants an extreme/unreasonable level of love, devotion, unquestioning obedience, sacrifice, etc.
In fact, that’s the norm; most people making that complaint aren’t literally saying the company wants truly that level of devotion and obedience. So people interpret your comment in light of that fact.
My “exaggeration” could have been taken in a number of different ways, with different possible responses to each one.
Literal interpretation. Response Uh, you do realize that if you put over the top gushing text into a resume / CV, it will be creepy, and people will reject it. Don’t do that.
Positive interpretation. Response I think this sounds a bit exaggerated. But I do agree it’s a good idea to make sure that your resume / CV addresses the points in the job offer.
Negative interpretation. Response You want me to crawl under the desk of the interviewer and service him, in order to get the job? What a horrible thing to say!
The repeated insistence that my comments have terrible intent says more about the reader than me, TBH. It’s not just an interpretation, it’s a world view that negative interpretations are the most likely ones to be correct.
Note that there was no clarifying question. Just a bare statement that my comment was terrible.
Depends why you’re wearing a suit. Is it to fulfil some corporate dress code? Then, no, why would that be a lie? Unless it’s your intent to communicate a message that you know or believe to be opposite to reality, then wearing clothes you wouldn’t normally wear is not a lie.
That is exactly my point about customizing the resume / CV for a job offer. It’s not a lie. It’s not self-harm. So why is it so hard to understand that customizing a resume / CV is also a positive thing?
“Communicate to the employer that I had read the job posting, and had relevant skills” has nothing to do with “communicate to the employer that I want the job”, i
So… if you don’t want the job, you should still communicate that you had read the posting? Or if you do want the job, you shouldn’t communicate to the employer that you do want the job?
In my view, the two situations are tightly bound. It is very odd to suggest that they are completely independent.
In fact, that’s the norm; most people making that complaint aren’t literally saying the company wants truly that level of devotion and obedience.
Reading the other comments here, I’m not so sure about that. The massive negativity I’m getting for explaining a position assumes all kinds of evil intent.
So people interpret your comment in light of that fact.
So people talking about companies aren’t literally saying bad things about them. But my comments were clearly intended to be negative, and it’s difficult to see them otherwise.
Having been on the end of circumstances you don’t control, it’s debilitating. Nothing you do makes any difference. But at the same time if you don’t do anything, things will get worse.
I’ll comment a bit on the article, and then give some wider comments based on my experience.
I think skills and experience almost always matter, unless you’re in a 100% corrupt / nepotism area. This comment sounds like despair to me, not an accurate description of the job market.
I disagree again, but referral does matter a lot. Anyone who’s posted a job in the last 15 years can tell you why.
Post: We’re looking for network engineers familiar with python, here are details of our needs…
Responses: 90% of the resumes are about something else. Javascript, web, documentation, etc. 90% of the remaining resumes are people who are vaguely close, but their resumes don’t tell you what they actually did.
So you bring in the remainder for interviews, and 75% can’t answer the simplest question about past projects. Answers include “I dunno what the software did, I just implemented pages 60 through 65 of the spec”. Many of the remainder have poor interpersonal skills (ignoring the female interviewer, not showering, talking forever, giving answers unrelated to the question, etc.), or they can’t answer the simplest technical questions about their “skills area”.
Eventually you find someone who seems good. So you give them an offer, and a trial period. Thank the gods for the trial period, because about many don’t actually have the skills they claimed to have. And others say things like “Well, I know you told me to do X, but I didn’t understand what you meant, so I just did Y instead”. Or, “Well, I know you told me to do X, but I didn’t think it would work, so I did Y instead”. Did they ask clarifying questions? Did they volunteer that they were delivering something other than what was asked? No. So they get canned a month into the trial period.
Or, as an employer, I can get told by a friend I trust “Hey, this person is good, and should fit into your company. I’ve worked with them before, and can vouch for them”. The success rate there is about 90%.
For the the author, I’m sorry you feel this way, but that’s the reality of the other end of the hiring process.
On a personal note, when I started looking for work after a graduate degree, I had a weird discussion with another graduate student:
Him: I've only gotten 5 job interviews, how did you do? Me: Hmm, I've had 5 job interviews too. Him: What! How many resumes did you send out? I sent out 150! Me: Uh... I sent out 15?The root cause was that he had one resume / cover letter, and spammed the same thing to everyone. When the employer looked at that resume they saw that he wanted a job, he didn’t want this job.
In contrast, I read the job posting, and reworked my resume for every single posting. I removed things which weren’t relevant. I used words from the posting in my resume. I tried to send a message of OMG, my entire life I’ve been working towards getting this job!
The results spoke for themselves.
I eventually got a job by answering a classified ad in the newspaper (yes, I’m old), but that doesn’t invalidate my approach. Since then, almost every job I’ve gotten after that was either (a) by word of mouth, or (b) because they found me, and wanted me specifically.
So I understand the frustration and burnout. As an employee, I couldn’t take it, so I started my own business. As an employer, I’m shocked at just how terrible most people are at their jobs. All I want is someone who shows up one time, is communicative, and is reasonably competent. That requirement rules out about 90% of the people who have relevant skills.
score 1 · canonical
Jobs one genuinely wants are extremely rare, and tailoring a CV and a cover letter to pretend otherwise is both an act of self-harm and a lie.
score 1 · canonical
That is a deeply cynical and fatalistic world view. I’m sorry you have such an extremist and negative views about the world.
score 1 · canonical
What’s cynical is thinking that it’s reasonable to “send a message of OMG, my entire life I’ve been working towards getting this job!” to a dozen different companies. You’re the one with “extremist and negative views about the world”.
score 1 · canonical
See my explanation further below about “purple prose”.
I’m sad to see that exaggeration for effect is being taken as 100% serious.
score 1 · canonical
This is a continuation from the end of the previous thread due to max comment depth reached.
That’s a false dichotomy that betrays a complete lack of understanding of how analogies work and what their purpose is.
Obviously my analogy has something to do with what you said. That doesn’t mean I’m claiming you made death threats.
I’ve several times explained the analogy, including in the very comment you’re responding to, and you again, deftly dodge the points in my comment to hone in on something you can twist beyond even a semblance of reasonableness.
Your twistings of my words are reaching a level of ridiculousness that will soon compete with the guy in your own bizarre analogy, which is saying something.
No, it’s not an analogy I made and I’m not saying the analogy I made was wrong. Again:
(Are you reading my comments fully?)
Again, I wasn’t analogising your words, I was analogising the scenario; the comparison I was making was not between the exact words said, but the fact of misinterpretation and response to misinterpretation.
I imagined a scenario where someone’s words could have been misinterpreted. Any scenario like that would do, because the exact scenario is not what’s important, my point is about misinterpretation and someone’s response to being misinterpreted more broadly.
That’s how analogies work, some details are only there as background, not every detail has to match up isomorphically 1:1 except in the most perfect analogies.
Of course, this can sometimes lead to misunderstandings, but again, I explicitly outlined the point of the analogy, so it’s not difficult to understand which parents were relevant and which were background.
Your claim at this point that I was claiming what you said was analogous to making death threats — they are in some trivial irrelevant senses, such as that they’re both words, but that’s not the point of the analogy, so I wasn’t even claiming that — is beyond lack of charity.
Can you actually respond to at least the main point I made?:
I will emphasise the point with this question because you clearly need help: how is that not analogous to what you did?. I wish I could increase the font size, but seems Lobste.rs doesn’t allow it.
Do you see the analogue between the two scenarios, now? Or are you now going to claim that I was saying you were playing video games?
Minor point, I want to amend this part slightly as well for maximum clarity (something I’d never usually bother with, since I think it’s clear enough, but I can’t fathom how hard you’re finding it to understand the most basic stuff):
to this (added parts emphasised):
score 0 · canonical
Yes. When you claim that screaming invective is analogous to “edit a CV”, you should understand that the analogy is wrong. It’s either deliberately deceptive, or it lacks awareness that the two situations are entirely different.
Then why make a false analogy?
“Hey, I’m not calling you a PDF file. I’m just asking questions about what you do with kids”.
Anyone who’s above board doesn’t come up with an insane and abusive analogy, and then when caught… back away from it. “Oh no, my analogy didn’t actually say that your comments were the same as screaming invective. I just meant to say I reacted to them the same as screaming invective. And, that reacting that way to your comments is perfectly normal.”
It’s not. No rational person would be shocked and horrified at the thought of editing a CV to make yourself look better. No rational person would draw an analogy between editing a CV, and screaming invective.
I understand that the analogy is intended to explain how someone would have a strong reaction to an innocuous statement.
Do you understand that the strong reaction has nothing whatsoever to do with the original statement?
Do you understand that it’s not a normal reaction to be shocked and horrified when someone says “edit a CV to make yourself look good”? Do you understand that such edits are not normally interpreted as “self harm”?
Do you understand that (for example) when someone calls you an asshole, a response of “I’m sorry you feel that way” is not interpreted by normal people as an admission that the accusation is true? And that most normal people interpret that response as a polite way of calling the accuser mentally ill?
score 0 · canonical
You literally quoted a part of my message that responds to your objection, yet your response to it is to reraise the objection.
Again, I wasn’t analogising your words, I was analogising the scenario. I repeat, “those two things, in isolation, are not analogous in any relevant way to my point”.
Do you understand what “in isolation” means? Why do you continually deliberately try to misrepresent me? I’ve already explained that isolating the two statements is a strawman of my analogy. Instead of addressing that, you continue to play dumb and act like I analogised the two statements in isolation.
Do you understand, as I’ve said, that not every detail of an analogy has to match up 1:1 isomorphically? You didn’t respond to this point.
Sure, just like browsing Lobste.rs is entirely different to playing a video game. You understand that, right?
Or do you think I was claiming that you were playing a video game? You didn’t respond to this point.
I wasn’t analogising playing video games to browsing Lobste.rs, you understand that, right? Or are you going to completely ignore this part of my comment and play dumb again?
No, that’s not the intention. I’ve explained the point of the analogy painstakingly step by step, are you even reading my comments?
Oh, yeah? Then explain this (don’t run this time), and let’s go step by step. Step one:
Here, the person responding in a way that implies that, even had the person’s interpretation been correct, they’d still have been wrong to object.
Step two: you responded in a way that implied that, even had @hjvt’s interpretation been correct, they’d still have been wrong to object.
Conclusion: what you did was analogous to what the guy in the video game analogy did. Not in every detail, not in the fact that you were playing video games, nor in the fact that you were playing any type of game, nor even in the fact that you were looking at a screen — that part happens to be a common feature, but it’s not relevant to the point.
I’ve explained this parallel several times now, and honestly, it’s no surprise you keep evading it. It perfectly demonstrates that not only did you not tell @hjvt they misinterpreted you, you were criticising their criticism of something you claim to have never said. Caught in 4K!
You can’t respond to it, that’s why you keep avoiding responding to it. That’s also why you keep repeatedly twisting my words beyond any reasonable reading, repeating the same points as if they weren’t already addressed, and so on.
Prove me wrong! Actually respond to the point instead of running once again! Give us the innocuous explanation that sheds new light on you yourself accepting @hjvt’s interpretation!
I didn’t. See above!
The only abuse in this thread is your gaslighting. And I have never used that word to describe a person’s behaviour before in my life. I hate how overused it is, and how little charity is often extended.
I never backed away from anything, I’ve repeatedly said you’ve misrepresented me.
But my initial charity of accepting your claim that I’d misinterpreted you isn’t being paid back in kind, and I’m starting to realise now that, in fact, you’re the one backing away from your initial words to @hjvt.
Of course, when you’re the type of person to do that, you’re going to assume anyone else who protests that you’ve misrepresented them is “backing away” from their statements. What makes it ridiculous at this point isn’t the rank hypocrisy, it’s the worsening of the hypocrisy by insisting on your misrepresentation despite repeated explanations of how you’re misrepresenting me
while refusing to engage with the point of commonality between you and the video game player that I’ve repeatedly pointed out, which is, ironically, or aptly given the hypocrisy, that you responded to an alleged misinterpretation by adopting the stance that you were allegedly misinterpreted as having taken.
No, that’s not what I “meant to say”, the point of that part of the analogy is that both words were misinterpreted. The guy in the analogy wasn’t making a real threat.
(And my reaction to your comments came after you responded to the misinterpretation, so I’m not even in the analogy; in the analogy, you’re the video game player, @hjvt’s the one responding to you.)
You can argue that the misinterpretation of the guy in the analogy was more warranted, but that’s not the question the analogy is trying to settle, so it makes no difference, and makes no sense to fight over who gets to beg the question on that.
The only point of him being misinterpreted, whether you think it was a warranted misinterpretation or not, is to set up the analogy for its culmination, the part where he responds to the misinterpretation.
And he responds to it the same way you did, by adopting the stance that he was misinterpreted as having taken.
score 0 · canonical
Of course. But it’s completely dishonest to use “screaming invective” as an analogy to comment of “edit a text file”. You’re (again) ignoring that point of my reply.
You could say “Hey, as an analogy, if someone punches me in the face, I fight back”. And then spend a dozen or more messages wondering why I don’t agree that the analogy is in any way relevant to the comment at hand.
Let me be perfectly clear: When I say “when you’re applying for a job, you should edit your CV to make yourself look good”, it is simply not possible to rationally conclude that what I really meant was that people should “pretend” to that you “genuinely” want a job you don’t “genuinely” want.
Your entire argument is based on reading things into my comments.
Absolutely not. No reasonable person would conclude that “edit a CV” was in any way analogous to “screaming invective”. That analogy is false, disingenuous, and lying.
The analogy was that screaming invective was interpreted honestly by the listener, and that the listener was rightly shocked and horrified by the screaming invective. And then only after finding out the real cause of the issue, the listener understood that the screaming invective wasn’t real.
That analogy is utterly irrelevant to the real case here. There is simply no possible way for anyone rational to read what I wrote, and be shocked and horrified by it.
The reading of my comments as intending “self harm”, or that people should “pretending” to want a job, or (bizarrely) that people should apply to a job they don’t “genuinely” want are not supported by any facts, logic, or reason.
And you haven’t explained. How do you get from my post to someone “pretending”? Or that I was advocating that people should apply to a job that they don’t want.
The only explanation you’ve given is an analogy which paints me in a very bad light. But honestly (wink wink) you didn’t really intend to paint me in a bad light. The analogy of me screaming like a lunatic is intended only to show how you respond to lunatics, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my statements.
To go with your analogy, if you heard that screaming invective from the video game player, and you then asked him “Why are you screaming the N word?”, he would respond that no, he wasn’t saying that, and no reasonable person would conclude that from what he said.
score 1 · canonical
I considered that it might be exaggeration, but companies demanding extreme(/disproportionate/unreasonable) levels of devotion is a real thing that people often complain about, so even if literally “working your whole life towards it” is exaggeration, I still read it as trying to demonstrate a level of desire for the job that’s incommensurate with the truth, because people actually do that.
Anyway, I found your other comment:
Communicating to the employer that you’d read the job posting and had relevant skills have nothing to do with having a desire to work for the company; any level of desire, it’s a qualitative not quantitative difference, so saying it’s exaggeration doesn’t quite sound right to me.
Also, either way you meant it, the commenter clearly understood it as you “pretend”ing to “genuinely want” the job (which I would take as: would choose to do the work if not for needing the money to survive), and then called that lying and an act of self-harm, which you called deeply cynical and fatalistic.
Could you clarify that as well?, because to me, even if they misunderstood you and you didn’t intend in the sense of pretence, it’s still the case that such pretence would be lying and an act of self-harm, but you simply dismissed that out of hand as “deeply cynical”, “fatalistic”, “extremist”, and “negative”.
Their view that such pretence would be lying and an act of self-harm is so obviously the opposite of all of those adjectives to me that I can only assume you misspoke, or you interpret their words differently to me.
score 1 · canonical
Sure, but that’s not the point I was trying to make. I was hoping that people would read my comments as making a point for effect, not as a literal statement to abase yourself to the corporate gods.
So when you show up at a job interview wearing a suit (or dress better than normal), is that a lie, too? Or are you trying to make a good impression?
Well, it’s what I intended it to mean. And I do appreciate that your comments here are communicative, and charitable. That’s a lot nicer than the wide range of fantastical inventions I’ve seen.
I hope you understand that’s a negative interpretation of what I said. A positive interpretation is a much simpler trying to make a good impression, or trying to see things from someone elses view.
Is it lying to tell the interviewer that you want the job? It is an act of self harm to phrase your resume using words from the job posting?
Such a response is deeply odd to me. Unlike some commenters, I don’t assume that prospective employers are evil bastards who want me to work for nothing. I expect that there will be a mutually beneficial exchange. If it isn’t beneficial to me, I’ll leave.
This is the disconnect. I fail to see how putting yourself in a positive light is an act of self-harm. Calling a positive action “lying” or “self harm” does come across to me as a very negative interpretation of what I said.
If the original commenter interpreted my statements as shitting on prospective employees, and demanding that they abase / abuse themselves to get the job, then yes… such I agree that demanding such abuse is negative. But I would gently suggest that such an interpretation is not a charitable one. If anything, it’s extreme, and negative. Hence my describing it that way.
My $0.02 is that if I’m trying to get a job, I communicate that I understand the requirements, that I want the job, and I put myself in the best light. Yet a large number of other commenters seem to think that’s an insane / evil thing for anyone to do.
score 1 · canonical
You’ve said that. I was trying to explain why:
a) your “exaggeration” is something too real and normalised by enough people that it doesn’t immediately come across as obvious exaggeration, and
b) even interpreting it as exaggeration doesn’t work, because the very act of communicating a higher level of desire for a job than you have, even if it’d be a reasonable, non-extreme, and proportionate level of desire to have for the job, just a level you don’t have, can still be a lie and an act of self-harm; I wouldn’t use such strong language myself, but I wouldn’t consider such an opinion to be extreme.
Depends why you’re wearing a suit. Is it to fulfil some corporate dress code? Then, no, why would that be a lie? Unless it’s your intent to communicate a message that you know or believe to be opposite to reality, then wearing clothes you wouldn’t normally wear is not a lie.
For example, a police officer wears a uniform on the job, but doesn’t off the job. That uniform is meant to communicate something to the people around them, something that’s true, which is that they’re a police officer. A (non-officer) criminal might wear the same as a lie. The police officer doesn’t normally wear those clothes outside of the job, that doesn’t make it a lie.
As for dressing better than normal, it depends exactly. When you say “better than normal”, does that mean dressing to a standard that you wouldn’t at home, or that you wouldn’t when hanging out with your friends, or what? And the purpose and intent matters. You’ve not given enough information to judge. It can be a lie, or there can be some other reasonable explanation for that behaviour.
Then you chose your words very poorly IMO, because even now with your clarification, I can’t look back at your original words and think, “oh, yeah, I see how they meant that”, I just look at it and think, “these words are very different from what they’re now saying they meant”.
“Communicate to the employer that I had read the job posting, and had relevant skills” has nothing to do with “communicate to the employer that I want the job”, irrespective of whether you’re communicating a reasonable level of desire or an extreme level of desire and also irrespective of whether the level of desire you’re communicating is truthful.
But, to reiterate, even interpreting it as exaggeration doesn’t work (see “b)” above).
You saying it’s a negative interpretation of what you said doesn’t respond to my point. See where I said, “even if they misunderstood you” [emphasis added]? It was obvious from their comment how they interpreted your words, they attacked their negative interpretation of your words, and you, instead of saying, “hey, you misunderstood me”, call their rejection of their negative interpretation of your words extremist and negative.
It’s like if someone overhears me shouting “you took my stuff, I’m gonna beat you to a pulp for that” into my headset, and storms into my room shouting, “what the hell, that’s not okay!”, and instead of telling them, “what?, no, I’m playing a video game”, I go, “why’re you defending a thief?”. If that person ends up wondering whether I might think what I’m doing is okay even outside the context of a video game, I wouldn’t blame them.
I mean, it would be (a lie) if you didn’t (want the job) and it wouldn’t be (a lie) if you did (want the job). Is this supposed to be a difficult one? I genuinely don’t understand the point you’re making here.
Edit to add this paragraph: All these questions are beside the point. They don’t get us closer to understanding whether our reading of your original comment was truly uncharitable, because even if I say that no, it’s not a lie, it doesn’t answer whether we were unjustified in reading your original comment as meaning ‘pretend to desire the job a lot more than [you do / is reasonable]’ instead of meaning ‘truthfully say that you want the job’.
I suspect how it usually happens is that the employer makes a reasonable choice to prefer candidates who are ‘excited about the mission’ or super concur with the ‘company values’ or other preferences, not requirements, but as the job market gets more competitive, more prospective employees start feeling like their only choice is to start, let’s say, ‘playing up’ their desire for the job.
You didn’t say they had a “negative interpretation”, you said they had a “negative worldview”, knowing full well — unless you misinterpreted their comment, and it’s okay to admit so — that their “worldview” was an attack on something you didn’t say, so of course it comes across as if you’re saying it’s negative to even disagree with the strawman of you.
See the video game analogy above.
I doubt anyone here is saying it’s insane or evil to communicate that you understand the requirements, that you want the job, and to put yourself in the best (truthful) light.
I would submit that if a “large number of other commenters” had a seemingly uncharitable interpretation of your comment, then there might have been a problem with how you’re communicating, or at least, it could be improved.
And, frankly, looking back at your original words and how you say you intended them, I see an unresolvable (to my mind) disconnect for the reason “b)” that I outlined.
When people complain that a company wants cult members, not employees, they can be exaggerating the degree while still meaning that the company wants an extreme/unreasonable level of love, devotion, unquestioning obedience, sacrifice, etc.
In fact, that’s the norm; most people making that complaint aren’t literally saying the company wants truly that level of devotion and obedience. So people interpret your comment in light of that fact.
score 1 · canonical
My “exaggeration” could have been taken in a number of different ways, with different possible responses to each one.
Literal interpretation. Response Uh, you do realize that if you put over the top gushing text into a resume / CV, it will be creepy, and people will reject it. Don’t do that.
Positive interpretation. Response I think this sounds a bit exaggerated. But I do agree it’s a good idea to make sure that your resume / CV addresses the points in the job offer.
Negative interpretation. Response You want me to crawl under the desk of the interviewer and service him, in order to get the job? What a horrible thing to say!
The repeated insistence that my comments have terrible intent says more about the reader than me, TBH. It’s not just an interpretation, it’s a world view that negative interpretations are the most likely ones to be correct.
Note that there was no clarifying question. Just a bare statement that my comment was terrible.
That is exactly my point about customizing the resume / CV for a job offer. It’s not a lie. It’s not self-harm. So why is it so hard to understand that customizing a resume / CV is also a positive thing?
So… if you don’t want the job, you should still communicate that you had read the posting? Or if you do want the job, you shouldn’t communicate to the employer that you do want the job?
In my view, the two situations are tightly bound. It is very odd to suggest that they are completely independent.
Reading the other comments here, I’m not so sure about that. The massive negativity I’m getting for explaining a position assumes all kinds of evil intent.
So people talking about companies aren’t literally saying bad things about them. But my comments were clearly intended to be negative, and it’s difficult to see them otherwise.
This is very much a double standard.
score 1 · canonical