Live data from Hacker News

I Got Catfished by a Candidate

saastr.com

551–560 of 662 posts

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#551
post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no matter how much tech people like to pretend real world is meritocracy. We are talking highly technical people, what merit did OP not have? It sounded like OP had 2 decades of experience in his niche. I really dont care if I hire men, women, or any race. I really dont. As long as you show up and get the job done, wonderful. Many people disappoint and my current contractor is a white male, and I dont care.

1.) Meritocracy is much stronger claim then just lack of sexism or racism. 2.) I am saying that non-meritoratio properties gives an individual advantage over other individuals with the same merit. That does not mean that former is stupid or incapable. It just means that real world if more messy then we like to pretend.

Why make this black and white?

A person in a niche has the requirements to get hired. They 'knew' someone from 20 years of working in this field.

At what point does it no longer become merit? They met the person at work, working on tech. Its not like they were born into it.

Also, I highly doubt 'same merit' is a thing in the tech world(especially among programmers). Programmers are rare and expensive, I doubt HR is choosy when it comes to these things. They have a difficult enough time filling positions.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#552

I get catfished often. Company X offers me a role where I have responsibilities Y and benefits Z. Promotions after a set number of time. Times go by, still not doing Y, but intern level work. Benefits Z never appear. And that promotion? Sorry, someone needs to die or leave first, and then maybe we will hire a direct replacement. Companies lie all the time in order to get a candidate to join.

Are you “interviewing” the company well enough when you are looking for a job? They shouldn’t be lying, but you can often pick up on these things through red flags in answers they give to your questions.

Maybe it’s a local thing, but I find I rarely have time to interview the company anymore. For the most part they’ve a set agenda that takes up all the time. I miss the days when nobody knew how to interview. I had plenty of time to ask questions.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#553
post #31

> backdoor reference checks aren’t always considered kosher by everyone ?? These are the most important references. Many excellent candidates won't have a back connection but when they are possible they can make an important difference two ways: One is the way described here (or, "this person was OK but doesn't sound like they would work out for the kind of thing you want -- that was where they failed with us too.").…

The fact that they are interviewing with a particular company is private information; you have no right to make that public. Also of note is that the article claims that "if I didn’t do my backdoor checks I would have never uncovered the Catfish", but then later states the "fake manager [was] one out of the two people that I knew from Acme Corp". Had she waited 'til that point, she would have discovered the lie witho…

> The recruiter was still having trouble getting the Acme Corp reference—which at this point was causing me some minor heart palpitations.

Sounds like the author is a piece of work himself. I wonder if he knows how this post paints the work culture at his company.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#554

It's strange to me how much linkedin is valued in silicon valley because to me it's like the ugly stepsister of social networking. Expecting someone to have a fully built out profile and expecting that person to actively seek out contacts in their own company is strange. I typically seek out contacts either when I first meet them or not at all. The only rhyme or reason to when I do it is when I happen to have a reaso…

One thing to keep in mind for this article is that it's for a sales position where contacts are a very valued resource

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#555
Coming soon to a blog near you: "I was the perfect candidate and didn't get the offer because companies hire based on who you know and where you worked, not how good you are."

Assuming that all of this is completely accurate and not at all written by someone who's a little wonky (Honestly, heart palpitations over a fucking candidate? Dude, cool your jets, man. You are waaaaaaaaay too stressed about this.) it's still an extremely unusual situation.

Anyone who uses this one--in my opinion at least partially false and possibly entirely fabricated--instance to go around giving advice about hiring has a screw loose.

The takeaways are incredibly suspect.

1. Trust your gut.

You know what? Fuck your gut. I don't care about your gut. Or mine. Gut instincts are more often than not a thinly veiled excuse for allowing racism, sexism, and insecurity into the hiring decision. Instead of something murky and nebulous like a gut instinct, try having a process instead. And follow it, even if it disagrees with your gut.

2. Social profile

Fuck that too. Social profiles are bullshit. LinkedIn is a bullshit predictor of anything and a bullshit indicator of past performance. So is GitHub.

3. References--given or backdoor

Fuck this too. References are meaningless. Don't bother. The references a candidate gives you are going to be at least neutral if not glowing. Extremely few people are dumb enough to give bad references. Backdoor references are extremely unethical. References are noise, not signal.

4. Stalk your candidates online looking for anything suspicious.

Wait for it . . . .

Fuck this too. If you dig deep enough, you'll find something wrong with everyone.

The author says he doesn't know what would've happened if he'd gone ahead with the hire. I do. The author would've continued the neurotic and unhealthy behavior displayed in the article. He would've continued to be the kind of boss who makes decisions based on his gut regardless of anything else a situation might be calling for. He would've brought the candidate into a toxic work environment run by a person who is entirely too emotionally involved with his job. The author would probably have ended up firing the candidate and then later refused to acknowledge that he ever worked there when future companies called for references.

In my opinion, every element of this article is extremely suspect. From the veracity of the facts therein to the takeaways based on them, it all smells a little . . . fishy. My main takeaway is that I should remember to never apply to work at this company. But then again, that's just my gut talking.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#556
post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He adapted to an unfavourable situation, studied hard, did his research well and passed multiple tests - I'd gladly work with someone like that

And when the solution to the next unfavorable situation he faces involves railroading you? Liars lie and cheaters cheat. You might be fine if you're never their target, but you never know when you will be.

Well said. These types of people are driven by an extreme arrogance that manifests itself as the justification for any bad behavior. Ultimately they believe they are always right, so if they have to lie in order to get you fired, that's fine, because clearly your crazy ideas are a threat to everyone's livelihood, and it would just be better for everyone if you were gone from the office, they just don't know it yet, but I have a knack for these things that others seem to lack, so I'll take it upon myself to engineer your firing.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#557
post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trending downwards, just like any social fraternity (OddFellows, etc). People are more interested in going online these days than having to attend actual meetings and so forth. The Masons' peak membership was in the 1950s.

Do you know if there are any US branches that aren't pushing the religious angle anymore? My mentor tried to encourage me to join when I was younger (I was a carpenter's assistant), but I rejected it out of hand due to the religious angle. I don't particularly care about the ceremony of the thing (I was the president of a fraternity and had to recite a bit of prayer during weekly meetings), but AFAIK the only atheist…

Not any that are going to be recognized as "regular" and adhere to the "Landmarks" of Freemasonry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_Landmarks

You'll find "clandestine" lodges (that just set up on their own, of their own authority) or claiming to be under the purview of a "Continental" Grand Lodge / "national" level GL that do stuff like allow women in, but if you join one of those Lodges, normal AF&AM/F&AM lodges will not recognize you as a fellow member or as a legitimate Mason.

"regular" Masonry has the Order of the Eastern Star, which is sort of the "Women's Auxiliary" of Masonry and has some similar rituals and ceremonies and so forth; it allows both women and men to be members.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#558

Does being a catfish really matter if they passed the rest of the interview process?

Impersonating people has crossed the line into fraud. The odds that this is the first and last time a person commits fraud for the job are fairly bad. You don't want that kind of drama.

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot to cite the continuation: > In that period of time, I read McMillan's "Options as a Strategic Investment"book. It's like the Bible of options trading." Which is pretty laudable. An even extraordinary example would be the current president of the united states, which still manages to lie, and people still support him.

>An even extraordinary example would be the current president of the united states I am not a crook. - Nixon Read my lips, I will not raise taxes it wouldn’t be prudent. - H.W. Bush I did not have sexual relations with that woman. - Clinton We found the weapons of mass destruction. - G.W. Bush If you like your health plan, you can keep it. - Obama

Does that make it any less extraordinary?

Re: I Got Catfished by a Candidate

#560
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your statements can be 100% truthful, and yet not reveal all of your thoughts about a subject or situation. Having a filter doesn't make you dishonest. Some of your thoughts are unkind, some can be even downright evil at times. The fact that you don't reveal these things is often a sign of self control. Words have power, and they affect others around you. There's a reason everyone can't hear every thought you have.…

> >I could answer with "thank you for making it" > You are carefully crafting a response to the question to make everyone believe that you liked the food without directly stating that. NO -- see that's the problem. You're making a huge assumption that is incorrect. "thank you for making it" does not mean "I liked it". And no, it won't make everyone believe that I liked the food (especially since that would not have b…

Is it more of a lie to make a statement that is literally true but the meaning is incorrectly interpreted, or more of a lie to make a statement that is literally untrue but the meaning is correctly interpreted?

Phrased another way, in software, does one insist on clinging to a protocol's specification if 90% of the implementations misinterpret it, or does one violate the specification in order to ensure that 90% of the implementations interpret it the correct way?

While this debate is occasionally relevant, we know that adapting software to the implementation is the only way to be effective. This is true with people too.

There is a lot of emphasis on tone, but that itself is one of these "social lies" we're discussing. The reality is that people don't care so much about tone as they care about hearing what they want to hear. An overwhelmingly positive tone to deliver a negative message will merely make someone hate you more.

The only way to "tactfully" deliver bad news is to deliver it so ambiguously that it isn't really clear what's happening (and maybe this isn't bad, as it gives the recipient time to mull over the possibilities and gradually adapt to the negative information, rather than getting hit like a ton of bricks).

Anything else will give a negative reaction, and your careful literalist wording that is technically "not a lie" will be interpreted as pomposity, arrogance, and additional deception, despite the extra intellectual effort you dumped into crafting a literally sanitary response.

This is hard to deal with, because it's the exact opposite of the intention for people who are naturally linguistic thinkers, like you and me. We put in the mental effort to be legally and technically correct and it just gets misinterpreted, often silently because "normal" people don't want to or necessarily know how to rebut the statement verbally -- they're content that your "hostility" was conveyed by making any statement that wasn't overwhelmingly positive.

This dichotomy is why lawyers are traditionally reviled. Their profession is linguistic trickery, minutia, and pedantry.

You can approach communication at the surface level of the verbatim information exchange, or you can approach it at the emotional level of ensuring that it conveys the intended, actual sentiment to the people receiving the information. Much of the time, unfortunately, we can't have both.

Post reply on HN