You're viewing a single thread.
You don't lie, lying will get you into trouble. You just don't mention it if they don't ask. And if they don't ask it's probably not that important. Most job descriptions are like Christmas wishlists anyway, they will be happy if they get half of it.
Then those criteria souldn't go under "Required" then.
"Required" has a clear definition.
These days you're called different with a sexy word neurodivergent when you tell the truth.
Like this person I also find this strange. And like this person I also have problems during job interviews. I mean, I'm not bullshitting you and I expect you to do the same. But alas, it's often bullshit and lowballing all the way.
You are looking at job applications from the wrong perspective. You are seeing the job description and seeing minimum requirements, when in 90% they are describing the ideal candidate that will probably never show up.
And I want to emphasise, you shouldn't lie, you shouldn't pad your résumé, but you should also not volunteer to testify against yourself.
My wife is super bad at not volunteering information.
She's partially deaf and a few other issues that make phone conversations hard, so she often asks me to sit in and listen to explain anything she didn't catch, and make sure she heard everything correctly.
I'm often making the neck cut "stop talking/mute mic" motion to get her to stop saying things the other people don't need to hear.
For instance, she quit a previous job over an employee basically stalking her while she was on the property, and screaming in her face over any imagined sleight. This employee was a problem with others as well, but who you know is more important than how you work in some places so nothing was ever done.
The other places she interviews with don't need the whole back story of why she quit. "Safety concerns" is completely correct, and leaves out the possibility that the new job might think you don't work well with others. She does. The other guy didn't.
So every time she starts telling the potential employer about it, I cut her off to remind her of that.
I'm very much the "ALL my information is need to know and you don't need to know" kind of person when it comes to things like that, and she just kind of vomits words all over the place when she feels uncomfortable.
i've heard the first rule of negotiations is don't answer any unasked questions.
That's good advice, but my problem is that my line of thought is connected to every other line of thought. It's quite the task to know where an answer to a question ends.
answer enough to finish with a good question.
Oh, hey, see now that is something I may be able to do. Instead of following the stated answer of least resistance, keep a mind out for a question on that path.
Yes, minimum requirements are not actually minimum requirements. So silly for people taking things literally.
That’s the thing, they aren’t minimum requirements. They’re a form that HR fills out based on what HR thinks the job is, not based on what the actual job is.
i often see a list of minimum and preferred.
That doesn’t mean anything, unless you’re in a field with government mandated certifications. If you know someone that already works there, ask them to submit your resume to get around the automatic rejections.
"Minimum Bachelor's Degree with major in Accounting, Finance or Economics"
"Prior audit or relevant accounting experience preferred, but not required."Strikes me as "This job can be done by anyone with a high school education that knows how to open Excel, change a cell value, and send an email. Other duties as assigned."
Then the job listing should say that instead.
HR wants to earn their pay too.
Writing accurate job requirements would de doing their job.
You've never worked in a corporate environment, have you?
I know that's not the whole job listing, but but none of it specifies a minimum requirement for the job. The 'minimum' qualification just indicates that they're not going to take note of lower qualifications, or those without an appropriate Major, not that having one is a minimum requirement. All things being equal, they're certainly going to prefer someone with that qualification, but if you can get past the screening and show aptitude with the skills they actually need, you've got a chance.
I know that’s not the whole job listing, but but none of it specifies a minimum requirement for the job.
Yes, that's saying that a Bachelor's is the minimum qualification that matters to them, not that having one is a minimum requirement. Don't get me wrong, if you don't have one and you're up against someone who does, they're going to have the advantage over you.
People here expecting a bureaucracy to behave not only like a person, but like a honest and transparent person with simple and plainly stated goals...
They’re not usually labeled “minimum requirements”
That may be what you’re interpreting, but they’re usually titled “ideal applicants will have the following” which isn’t the same thing
It feels like the same thing to people with rigid views on the world, but they are not the same.
I frequently see a list of minimum separate from preferred. Here's an example.
Entirely!
But not all systems have that feature.
It's not people with rigid world views, but people who don't know the social cues/"legalese" of job speak.
AKA local bullshit.
If s not a requirement if it is optional or noce-to-have!
Which means the company is lying. Respond to them with this knowledge in hand, any way that you see as appropriate.
It's only wrong if you get caught!
I find it entertaining that the criteria for neurodivergence includes telling the truth.
I find it concerning that lying is apparently always an option for NTs.
I’m autistic and lying is always an option for me too. I’m extremely good at it. I just don’t do it, because it’s wrong and harmful.
Isn't it annoying that the majority of time when it is pointed out that an entire system is based on lying and misrepresentation that the excuse is either 'that's just how it is' or 'everyone does it' as if that makes it right somehow.
Neurotypical just seems to be going along with everyone else's bullshit to avoid conflict.
I think when people say “it’s how it is” or “everyone does it”, it’s more of a pragmatic way to cope. End of the day, we gotta have food, shelter, and entertainment. If only shitheads lie, they’ll be the only one to be successful. One person on the bottom being honest won’t change a system with ages of momentum
The calculus is if I value truth telling over my mortgage? Vast majority of the time, my mortgage wins.
Many people mistake cowardice for wisdom.
I was taught that lying is a sin and if I do it I will burn in hell for all enteeity. Also, that it is expected that I lie on basically every form I'm provided, mostly by ommission but other ways too.
There's a reason I rarely feel hopeful.
That’s the whole communication gap. When allistic people talk they will almost always lie or say something other than what they mean, which gives the other person the opportunity to lie or ignore what they meant if it suits them. This is what’s known as being “polite.”
That’s an intentionally rigid view of the world.
The communication gap is that rigidity.
For example, it may say “minimum requirements” on the web form, but let’s put ourselves into the shoes of the person filling it out. Are they SUPER strict on these minimums? Or are they just filling out the form the best they can?
Usually it says sobering along the lines of “ideal candidates” and not “bare minimum” but you likely won’t see that due to overly rigid views on the world.
What if they made a mistake when filling it out, and added things to the “bare minimum “ that aren’t really that harsh a requirement?
It’s a grey area, it’s not a direct lie and you know that, you just don’t like it.
Saying it’s a lie assumes you know the intention of the person writing it, and that they intended to deceive you. And you can’t possibly know that either.
It’s Not a lie and you’re misrepresenting your knowledge of the scenario when you say that.
As an autistic I resolve this in my head by reminding myself that words can have different meanings.
For example
(“How are you?” -> “I’m fine how are you?” -> “Doing well, thanks”)
actually means
(“hello” -> “hello”)It’s code. The meaning is precise, and it’s not a false question. It’s a symbolic question.
It’s an equivalent meaning in the same way that:
(“hola” -> “hola”)
means the same thing as
(“hello” -> “hello”)English is, therefore, not just one language. English is many languages using the same set of words.
Beautiful and thoughtful response.
I’m peak ADHD, and I often use the same type of thing
Wait hold on.
Are you saying NT lie all the time or ND lie all the time?
Because neither of those is true?
Or if it is, it explains my ex a whole lot better
NT people lie and or talk around what they mean rather than say it directly. Neurodivergent people, especially autistic people, are not like this and find it taxing to deal with.
That doesn't make any sense. Yes, I have ADHD and not ASD, so yes I have a slightly easier time with social interactions, but NT don't lie or avoid direct language. They try to minimize the harm of their words.
That's like me stating that ND people lack empathy, and they are insulting because they don't care about the other person's feelings.
I think if you look for it you will see it more often. I also think most NT don’t notice when they do it because it’s second nature. Sure there are white lies, small lies, and then more nefarious lies. It’s still a core part of “normal” communication. Add in the indirect speech and every meaningful conversation is like a game where no one says what they actually mean.
Ok, I see where you are coming from.
My challenge to your thinking is that a lie requires intent. My ex lied about cheating on me when I had the screenshot of her admitting it in my hands. I knew it was a lie, I had the evidence. She lied anyway because it made her feel better (actually she stated it because to her we "weren't together anymore").
The intent behind nuanced speech and carefully chosen words isn't to deceive, it's to help the other come to the conclusion on their own. A jarring direct statement causes emotional disregulation and clouds reasoning. Being direct all the time leads to the other party rejecting your statements even if they are undoubtedly true.
...and the rules change at a whim, it is never consistent...
Plus they vary massively from culture to culture and region to region, but are all treated as the right way to behave.
I'm not telling you not tell the truth, I'm telling you to consider that list of skills on a job description is a wishlist and only answer what is asked in the interview.
I've interviewed more people than I can count, leading to more hirings than I can count, and I don't remember any case where the candidate met all the checkboxes on the ideal skillset. Because what goes in the job description is the perfect candidate not the minimum.
When I found out the list of qualifications could be filled on the job it made applying a lot easier because I was no longer worried about bring 'found out' for not being fully qualified on day one. I blame the position wording making it sound like day one requirements and HR treating them as day one requirements
So you're saying that you're the one doing the lying when you fill out the job description?
I'm my experience, even if you get caught. The exaggeration to get your foot in the door is expected, and everyone is expected to represent themselves deceptively well. Honesty in the interview when everyone can deal with nuance can work and might be appreciated, but definitely a little exaggeration in the resume unless you have ungodly actual credentials/connections.
Also, if you think enough about what a lie even is you can rationalize a lot. Am I a self motivated and highly organized person? Well, nobody's ever described me that way before, but maybe I could start being one right now, stranger things have happened. And if it all blows up a few months down the line because I couldn't manage to get my shit together, I'll take my couple of paychecks and tell myself "well, I meant to do better" and that will be at least 51% true and I will have a couple of paychecks I wouldn't have otherwise.
Alternatively, just find a way to sell your weaknesses as strengths. e.g. "I'm not always super organized, but I'm real good at dropping in to a chaotic situations on short notice and getting the essential things straightened out quickly because my disorganized nature has forced me to learn those skills. I'm not self motivated, so you don't need to worry about me undermining your plans and vision for this place with my own, making decisions makes me nervous so you do that stuff and I will see that your decisions are carried out."
In my case, early in my career a contracting company lied on my behalf without telling me.
So I'm in the "skills assessment" meeting and I'm confused when they started rattling off experience from my resume that I didn't have. I asked if I could see their copy of my resume and said "ok they made this section up, but the rest appears the same, here a printed copy of my resume unmodified".
I was shocked and figured that was a way to tank any chance I had at the job, but they "hired" me and said people and contracting companies did it all the time, so it didn't phase them, but admitted my resume as it was from me wouldn't have even gotten an assessment.
Lying by omission is still lying. And if they weren't hard requirements, they should say so. So many job listings I've seen word it like those are the minimum requirements.