Hacker News Reader

Comment by hbt | Hacker News Reader

you call him a creep, I would call him a go getter.

it is immensely frustrating to deal with automated systems, resume keyword matchers, no contact within a company and being ghosted after taking the time to write a proposal and cover letter that is a fit for the job description.

so what, he called an executive and got around their spam filter?

my advice

treat job hunting like a sales process.

you're successful based on the number of interviews you get.

figure out during the interview what's their decision making process.

read more books on sales and learn to handle rejection.

stop pursuing status jobs, at least until you have one with a good income.

View on HN

> you call him a creep, I would call him a go getter.

I've not had terribly good luck with people who use the term 'go getter.' Quite a few of them have been creeps. Smooth and slick, definitely, but at the end of the day, manipulative people who I avoid making eye contact with at public events, hoping that they don't remember me. Creeps.

Sounds like many external third party recruiters, or perhaps many sales oriented jobs. Assuming you have a thick skin for rejection.

I tend to avoid dealing with such recruiters that use heavy handed forceful tactics, but there are a lot of them.

What you describe seems very different from the poster.

I wonder if you use the word creep really broadly; e.g. to include people that make you uncomfortable.

Many/most of those people, it seems to me, mean well but have difficulty connecting with you in the way you are used to. Many of those people have a bunch of insecurities, burdens, or even mental health concerns. I don't think it is useful to call those people creeps.

Some people are certainly toxic in the context of certain relationships or cultures, I get that.

If someone is using you without reciprocating, there are words for that, but I don't tend to use 'creep'.

Anyhow, I hope we can offer constructive (actionable) feedback to the OP.

> I wonder if you use the word creep really broadly; e.g. to include people that make you uncomfortable.

Isn't that the normal definition?

I guess i agree that creep is a deregatory word and not really helpful in this context. At the same time, intentionally obfuscating who you are in order to trick someone into interacting with you against their will is not ok behaviour, and well within what most people consider "creepy". Possibly even crosses the line into harrasment.

> Many/most of those people, it seems to me, mean well but have difficulty connecting with you in the way you are used to. Many of those people have a bunch of insecurities, burdens, or even mental health concerns.

That's hard, but ultimately doesn't excuse actions that negatively impact other people.

There are people that I am uncomfortable with that I don't call creeps.

Just take physical proximity for example. I know some close talkers. I find it awkward but not creepy. Various cultures have varying degrees of recognizing personal space.

And I wouldn’t hire them. That’s the point OP was trying to make.

Exactly. It might not be their fault but that is not an excuse for me to hire them, it is not my prerogative to give the benefit of the doubt especially when so many other job applicants exist.

I get the impression it is common for technically oriented people to think of salespeople, marketers, and recruiters as manipulative.

In your view, what are some ways you think about the difference between persuasion and manipulation?

I've been reading about this very topic in the context of media persuasion.

For me it's whether I believe that the person genuinely cares about the good of the person they're interacting with. Very, very few sales people will stop trying to sell you a thing just because they find out you don't need it.

Put another way, persuasion is helping someone explore the topic and come to their own conclusion, manipulation is going in knowing the answer and guiding towards it. If you are trying to help someone realize a truth you knew ahead of time, you're manipulating them.

In this context, manipulation comes from a place of dishonest enthusiasm.

Salespeople, marketers, and recruiters generally don't give two shits about the product they're selling.

So yes it's manipulative because they're displaying fake enthusiasm and trying to trick you into thinking it's genuine.

Not who you asked, but for me persuasion is a manner of manipulation, trying to convince anyone of anything using anything but raw and complete information is manipulation.

Of course under that assumption, basically every human communication is manipulative, but that doesn't mean it is intrinsically "evil". It's all rather subjective I guess.

"Evil", or maybe to be a bit more specific, "sleazy", would be to use such manipulation with the intent of personal or tribal benefit, which is what fits the people groups you mentioned above.

Of course everyone has an agenda. I think it crosses over into "manipulation" when you knowingly advance your own agenda at the other person's expense.

For instance, suppose I have a wonderful product people would love to buy, if only they knew about it. I would argue that advertising it wouldn't be "manipulative" as it is commonly understood, even though I am doing it for selfish reasons. But if I knew that the product was dangerous, or fake, or otherwise harmful, then that becomes manipulative behavior.

Manipulation is when you lie to me. Persuasion is when you believe what you're telling me.

My criteria is that there shouldn't be shame between us if we found out that we both attended the same metaphorical church, family and all.

Manipulation is simply put, getting someone to do what they don't want to do.

Actual persuasion is when you get them to want to do it. But a lot of forms of manipulation are disguised as persuasion - guilt, gaslighting, partial truth. A lot of "hustling" is manipulation too, they want to convince the higher up that they are willing to do anything for the job, despite not being the most qualified for it.

"The scholar, having to encounter doubts and difficulties on all hands, [...] learns to take nothing for granted; least of all, to make an assumption of his own superior merits. [...] It takes years of patient toil and devoted enthusiasm to master any art or science; and after all, the success is doubtful. He infers that other triumphs must be prepared in like manner at an humble distance: he cannot conceive that any object worth seizing on or deserving of regard, can be carried by a coup de main. [...] It never once enters his head (till it is too late) that impudence is the current coin in the affairs of life; that he who doubts his own merit, never has credit given him by others; [...] that the world judge by appearances, not by realities; and that they sympathize more readily with those who are prompt to do themselves justice, and to show off their various qualifications or enforce their pretensions to the utmost. [...] He who has spent the best part of his time and wasted his best powers in endeavouring to answer the question -- 'What is truth?' -- scorns a lie, and every thing making the smallest approach to one. His mind by habit has become tenacious of, devoted to the truth."

William Hazlitt, The Shyness of Scholars (1827)

William Hazlitt, The Shyness of Scholars (1827)

That was before universities had PR departments.

> you call him a creep, I would call him a go getter.

Perhaps the difference is how succesful you are at it.

> so what, he called an executive and got around their spam filter?

Pissing off people you need something from is probably a poor tactic. Especially when you're not offering something particularly rare. Doubly so because the executive is not the hiring manager, so its unlikely they could help you, only hurt you.

I agree with most of the rest of your advice fwiw.

> Doubly so because the executive is not the hiring manager

This is really the crux of it, for me. People hear stories about executives finding that diamond in the rough and slashing through the beauracracy to get them hired. That kind of thing almost never happens, especially from the perspective of the person looking for a job. I think this perspective might be hard to get until you've worked at a large organization, or better hired people at one.

Brutal honesty? You're probably just not that special, don't expect special treatment.

It does happen - with friends son so that you give favor to friends and hope he will reciprocate.

From sons perspective, executive found diamond, little bit pushed him on starter point.

From other employees perspective, it is nepotism. Friends son got a job that more experienced and qualified people could or should do.

Nepotism is very different than what was being described here.

> treat job hunting like a sales process.

Right, and any salesperson will tell you that acting like a creep isn't going to get you sales.

I wouldn't go as far to say OP is a creep, but some of the behavior mentioned does make me cringe a bit.

I mean, you have a hmguy that's hustling got three great opportunities and gave them up. So, maybe hustling for a job but not to use it to lranlrn anything to get the skills for the next job.

hire them then

Reply on news.ycombinator.com