Hacker News Reader

Comment by DeathArrow | Hacker News Reader

It's exactly what I do. I always try to bring the interviewer on a territory I am comfortable with and paint myself in a good light.

If you seem hesitant, if you seem unsure about what you did and why, it's not good. Why should an employer trust you with the job if even you don't trust yourself that much.

From two people, one with lower technical skills but with good people skills, projecting trust and confidence, the other with better technical skills, the former will almost always win the job. Employers want wheels that work well with other wheels and turn fast.

View on HN

> and paint myself in a good light

You don't absolutely need to paint yourself in a good light. One can describe mistakes, mishaps, even times when they were being mean. Injecting some bad outlooks can help balance the narrative and make the whole picture look more sincere.

But the hero of the story has to be in charge. They can fail, or make huge mistakes, but they can never watch events happen and pass them by, without them doing anything. That's the worst mistake a storyteller can make.

>Injecting some bad outlooks can help balance the narrative and make the whole picture look more sincere.

You have to asses whether the person values sincerity or it wants a new shiny thing. Act like a car salesman. Also, look into the interviewers eyes. Try to watch your gestures.

I never injected bad outlooks unless being asked what were some mistakes I made. I made sure that my mistakes were insignificant and maybe not mistakes at all.

I am a purrrfect developer/architect and I want to help making the company purrrfect. We want to satisfy our customers, while making lots of money for the shareholders, make all bosses happy, big and small, and achieve great things together as a team. That's the message.

I can’t remember exactly where but there was a study- it could have been recommendation letters or maybe resumes- where candidates who has some low to mid level flaws mentioned were rated significantly higher. I think the theory is that a couple minor downsides make the upsides more credible. Obviously there’s limits. And going on a long rant about how crappy you actually are would def provide needed entertainment.

> You don't absolutely need to paint yourself in a good light.

That really, really depends on the interviewer. Some will laud sincerity, others will scorn weakness. Though personally I could never figure out who I was dealing with before I tell my story. If they don’t like how I am, oh well. I’m not hungry yet.

We are arguing semantics but IMO the sincerity is part of painting yourself in a good light. Saying you are perfect is not painting yourself in a good light, but making sure you attribute success also to your colleagues (I did x they did y) and mention good things you did, even with mistakes, ultimately tells good things about you.

TBH, that's still painting yourself in a good light. Just a subtler approach to that. Overcoming flaws is more compelling than never having them in the first place. Because we all know that everything/everyone fails all the time.

> If you seem hesitant, if you seem unsure about what you did and why, it's not good.

No, god forbid someone actually thinks about what they say before they say something.

You can think while saying something, making a little intro.

I actually remember hearing something here about people who stop and pause to think for a few seconds being rated higher.

There’s a difference between hesitating and pausing to think. Perhaps not internally, but in body language. In some ways they’re even polar opposites: hesitations are involuntary and make you look weak, while pausing to think can help you control the pace of the conversation, and (if not overdone) can grant you some authority.

The timing is very important: if you pause in the middle of a sentence that generally feels like a hesitation. If you pause before you start answering, then it’s all fluid, that’s pausing to think.

I can accept that this is effective with most companies, and I don't blame you for doing what you can to increase your chances, but in an ideal world each side is their genuine self.

I understand that some people see an interview as a sales meeting, but in the end, if it works out, what results is both sides having to interact with each other on a daily basis ideally for a long time.

An employment relationship is in the end a relationship between people. Embellishing in an interview just makes that relationship uncomfortable.

>An employment relationship is in the end a relationship between people.

I view it as a product sale. Me selling my knowledge and skills, they buying it. Similar to how they sale or rent their software to the customers.

A company is not people, a company doesn't have soul. It solely exist to make shareholders profit. People at the company I will have relationships with, and I try to have good relationships.

I never lie, just tell the story they way I benefit from it.

>what results is both sides having to interact with each other on a daily basis ideally

If I foresee that I might dislike the interaction in the future, I can just move over.

> in an ideal world each side is their genuine self.

You're hired primarily based on other people's estimate of you. They'll hold you in higher esteem if they like you. I don't see how you get from "it's a relationship between people" to "you should be your genuine self". Interacting with others always involves a certain degree of masking, unless you are implausibly neurotypical.

> Employers want wheels that work well with other wheels and turn fast.

socially awkward introverts == wheels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com