A job I applied to a year ago made me do a general logic test. It’s the only job that’s ever made me do one. I think I spent like half the time on one question because I was so confused. I genuinely believe there was a typo. Anyways, it’s the closest I’ve come to putting my foot down and asking for accomodations because holy shit.
So, I ace the part relevant to my job but failed that part bad. Get this: they say they want me to retake it before giving the results to the potential client. HUH? If the test is bullshit, why make me do it at all? AND GET THIS. I retake it. I’ve now wasted three hours of my 2023 holiday season on this. The client rejects me because I didn’t have experience with some random technology. WTF??? I think I even asked before all this why don’t they show my resume to the client before the test and they said because they like to give a full file. I was so angry. It’s probably the most unprofessional email I’ve sent, but I literally sent one saying something like “Then why didn’t you show them my resume before making me waste three hours???” Seriously. They didn’t even talk to me. Which is fine, I’m not saying they should have to, but for the contracting company to make me waste so much time… And to make me retake it (proving the whole thing is BS). Wow.
Anyways, I’m employed now, thank goodness.
My boss’s boss said everyone should be happy on Friday because it’s bonus day. I’m my boss’s only contracted employee. I think I don’t get one. I’m very tempted to just send him an email like “was I supposed to see a bonus in my paycheck? Blah mentioned it.” But I don’t wanna seem passive aggressive.
The problem is the job market has basically priced in exaggerations on resumes. People exaggerate all the time and don’t get punished for it.
If you don’t exaggerate, you may even miss out on opportunities and hamper your career goals whatever they may be, because they already assume you exaggerate and already account for it when reading your resume. And if you don’t exaggerate? Well, they’re happy to pay you less than they would’ve.
Certainly at least in tech in the Bay Area, fake it till you make it is the norm. I’ve met plenty of people with amazing resumes and references just to see them not be as good as advertised.
I took a job as a medical assistant. I was not certified. It was during COVID, and the manager was woefully understaffed. I had zero experience or training. They still hired me, because in her words “we can teach you everything you need to know, and your resume demonstrated you were a good learner so that’s all that matters.” (I had taught myself Chinese and coding, and put that on the resume).
I worked my butt off, and after two years when I had to leave to go back to school they offered me a massive raise, more training to get me a promotion as an actual technician to start making 80k/year, and they even said when I finished grad school I could be taken on as a partner and own the business (it was a small clinic). They wanted to do anything to get me to stay.
All these companies these days care too much about certs. They don’t know how to hire. They should look for resume’s that demonstrate learning, initiative, responsibility, and commitment. Because at the end of the day: almost anyone can learn any job that isn’t a PhD-level.
Like, having managers be required to have a college degree is moronic.
I don’t understand why op thinks they are special for going through this workflow. Women are way less likely than men to ignore job requirements when applying for jobs and many many people have to be reminded that job requirements are fluffy. Are all these people “neurodivergent”? We seem to want to apply this term everywhere for some reason.
I think most people are like this but neurodivergent people have trouble coming to terms with breaking the rules. As in they see an incongruity between the stated rule and the way everyone behaves. What OP is talking about is textbook neurodivergence behavior though I’m sure other people experience this to some degree.
As a neurodivergent, this. Exactly. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I literally cannot because I’d quickly ramble on and talk about seemingly unimportant things for like, three sentences, but only use commas, so that it looks/reads as a single sentence, then ultimately say what you said, but I would say it worse somehow.
I’m ADHD. AMA?
I used to do that with elipses until I was scathingly mocked on a BBS when I was a teenager. It takes me longer but it did make me better at writing for others to read on the internet.
I don’t think that op thinks they’re special by going through the workflow. I think op thinks that the workflow lands differently on them because of their condition. I think op thinks that it’s related to their condition because no one else seems to be complaining about this and so maybe neurotypicals aren’t as bothered by this.
Yeah, this is an oddly common sentiment amongst those that make neurodivergence their personality; which is funny because it’s more common to be neurodivergent than neurotypical. While it’s usually said that 20% of people are neurodivergent, it’s actually more than 50% when you include everything that constitutes neurodivergence and even account for significant overlap.
I think “neurotypical” by now means “I wanna say ‘normie I look down upon’, but I don’t want to sound like an incel”
Nope. I’m neurodivergent, I know a lot of neurodivergent people. We all kind of gravitated to eachother over time. Some are ADHD, like me, some are on the spectrum for autism, and there’s a bunch more that I simply cannot list because the list is pretty long.
I can tell you that zero of the neurodivergent people I know use the term “neurotypical” to mean anything like what you suggest. In every context it’s meant to exemplify the lack of mental struggle that some people have in their daily life in contrast to what most neurodivergent people experience.
Eg, anxiety and paralysis when contemplating or engaging in anything remotely social. For some neurodivergents, such activity evokes a very strong reaction. Some neurotypicals also experience something similar, usually less severe at least; but the experience is not unique to us.
The most common derogatory use of “neurotypical” that I’ve seen is regarding empathy, or the lack thereof, from people who have not experienced a major mental health event, and are so neurotypical that they cannot even fathom the struggles of people who are neurodivergent.
You all don’t understand, then victim blame us and call us lazy, when our brain chemistry literally prevents us from making any useful progress on stuff. Then there’s a whole swath of you that shames us for using meds to help correct the discomfort of being wired differently in a world that isn’t designed to accommodate, or even sympathise with us.
Now we’re being, more or less, accused of using “neurotypical” as a slur to hide that we’re incels?
Seriously?
What if they meant it from the perspective of a neurotypical?
If they want to take offense at what is essentially a synonym for “normal, societally accepted brain function” the sure lol
are y’all actually gatekeeping diversity?
It’s not lying as much as it’s advertising. If they’re asking about your greatest weakness, tell them. Just don’t neglect to mention how you mitigate that weakness too, and are improving. Don’t let your answer end on “I’m a disorganized mess”, end it on “so in the last year, I’ve started building and using checklists and it’s been really effective”.
In the same way, be up front if they ask about the criteria you don’t meet. But consider your entire answer, again, you can say something like “I actually haven’t worked in that language before, but I’ve done lots of work in Python and Java, so I’m confident I can pick it up quickly as needed”. If they don’t ask, then it probably wasn’t really that important of a criteria to them, so you shouldn’t waste your interview time talking about it either.
Don’t volunteer all your worst traits, you only have an hour, so focus on describing your strengths as often as you can. Nobody expects to completely understand you as a person in one hour, they’re specifically asking you to come in and advertise yourself. Instead, read between the lines in the listing (I.E. Things mentioned in the job description or title are likely more important than something in a single bullet point. Look for repetition, or how much they talk about each requirement.). Figure out what the “customer” wants that you’re good at, and ensure you emphasize it, repeatedly. Define clear takeaways and make sure they know what you’re offering, and will actually remember it too.
And practice your answers to many questions. Come up with your best anecdotes for “a time you resolved a conflict with a coworker” and all that nonsense in advance, so that you can confidently segue into those stories that best emphasize your takeaways when asked. Do some research on the company to come up with a good answer to questions like “why do you want to work here?”. The answer doesn’t have to be your top priority, which is obviously “a paycheque”, but just append an unsaid “instead of somewhere else” and answer honestly, because people are good at detecting insincerity. You likely haven’t applied to every company on earth, so tell them why you chose them.
Lastly, like an advertiser, don’t be afraid to segue from other questions into your prepared answers. “Yeah, I’ve always loved X, that’s why I wanted to work here actually, I’d heard a bit about how you were getting involved with X, but with this interesting twist, and thought that sounded like something I’d really enjoy working on”. The interview questions are designed to get you talking about yourself, it’s not a survey where the strict questions are all that matter, and you can simply joke about it if the question comes up later.
A lot of this is tied into rhetoric. Rhetoric is a skill. You don’t need to lie. You need to tell the truth good.
saving this for future reference. I’ve told this to many of friends over the years, but you’ve laid it out more beautifully than I ever did
As an autistic person I relate to this so hard it isn’t funny.
As a non-autistic person, it’s also incredibly annoying. Job hunting has always been a really stupid system with lots of really stupid rules of thumbs.
I have a stable job that I like.
Sometimes I think I should go to interviews just to make recruiters feel insecure, “your business is not up to my expectations” “what do you mean you don’t provide flexible remote working?” “Your paycheck is just too small for me, sorry”.
I would get a laugh of of it and probably would help some fella by lowering this fuckers ego.
I do this all the time. Keeps my interview skills sharp. Plus you never know when somewhere will wind up making you an insane offer.
How do you do something like this when most interviews happen during work hours?
It’s a lot easier if you have an office job, even easier if you’re full time remote. My experience has been the first round is over the phone, in which case before the pandemic I used to just go find an empty meeting room or go out to my car to take the call. For in person interviews, I’ll “have an appointment” and take a half day.
Your motives are horrible. Hiring managers in any org larger than a few hundred people have very little control over anything you mentioned. So you’re just taking time away from other applicants and time away from the needs of the people who already work at a place in order to satisfy your pettiness.
If you actually did this rather than just wanting to, you would be the bad guy in the situation.
Those HR people who make the listing don’t understand most of it anyway.
“I’m looking fora Data Analyst”
“Gotcha, we put up an ad for Data Science”
“No, Data Analyst, that’s diff-”
“Here, we already got some applicants”
“They’ll be very disappointed to learn that I’m not interested in their AI skills”
I’m learning how many names there are now for “person who can shoot and edit video” since I last needed to look for a job in my field. To the point that I suddenly find a new keyword and there’s like 10 more jobs I can apply for.
Oh lord, as a 25 year industry vet in everything audio and video, that’s been with my current company for a looooong time, this bothers me. Out of interest what kinda whacky names are you seeing for this kinda roll?
Weird-ass shit like “Lead Creative” and “Social Marketing Executive”
It’s also ridiculous how often I see „Java“ instead of „JavaScript“ in job listings.
Edit: Not trying to judge Java here, this is purely about recruiters not knowing the difference, posting jobs for Java devs when they need JS devs
Agreed, why haven’t we killed java off? It’s terrible and there are replacements. At least with JavaScript it’s terrible but a monopoly.
Maybe they have a ton of different machines and need an app that works in any environment?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then those criteria souldn’t go under “Required” then.
“Required” has a clear definition.
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.
…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.
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.
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.”
As someone who has read a lot of cvs, i wish more people thought like this. We didn’t list the requirements just for fun. Quit wasting people’s time by applying for stuff when you don’t match the requirements
As someone who has applied to a lot of jobs, I wish more job posters thought like you. It would take me 1 minute to find you a job posting for an IT position where they ask for a minimum number of years using a technology that hasn’t even existed for that many years.
I think this happens because some manager says “we want an expert in this technology” but then the job poster slaps some arbitrary number on that like “oh 5-10 years should be enough for an expert” with no awareness that it’s a brand new technology.
Yeah. That’s being a fucking idiot and has nothing to do with my post
It would take 15 seconds to look up “<technology> release date” and use that as a reference.
Bro… Your asking HR. Curb your expectations.
Yeah, don’t ask me my opinion of HR. Biggest boot lickers in the entire universe, change my mind.
I mean to be fair, it’s a struggle between terms like “expert” or “senior” being too ambiguous and a time interval of experience being a poor indicator of actual proficiency. The corporate world doesn’t care though and ties the two together as a general rule because middle management isn’t smart enough to tell the difference. Thus, it boils down to “we’re hiring a senior level, it takes X years to reach that at our company, thus we expect someone to have that many years of experience at any other company doing a job similar to what we do”. Some HR peon then words it like “you need X years of experience using [exact technologies we expect applicant to use]”.
To tie this back to the OP: Most (?) people understand this is what is happening in basically all job postings where they list years of required experience to match their expected proficiency (i.e. I’m as good as someone who has been doing this for X years), but there are people who interpret this literally and think that if they have X-0.1 years of experience in that exact thing that they will be automatically rejected because it said X is required and they do not have X.
Thank you for your valuable insight.
Blame all the companies with ridiculously high requirements just to hire people who don’t meet all of them. It’s a common advice to apply even when you don’t meet all the reqs, because it works out so often.
Yeah fair, that’s a shitty behaviour as well
I dont know why they do it and I dont care to find out. I just know I apply even if I dont match the complete criteria. If I tick off 60-70% of what they want, I’ll apply. We are people, not machines. If something doesnt match but is close to it, we try and make it work. This is how the real world works. There are multiple factors at play and they can work in your favour.
I got my first job which required a college degree and some experience. I had personal (non-professional) experience and no degree. Showed an interest in the work they did, told them I work on my own things from time to time and got hired. What probably worked in my favor was a lack of other applicants showing the same degree of interest. I even told them I’d graduate in a year and we made it a requirement. Never got my degree and worked there for 7 years. No lying, some luck and showing an interest. Same strategy worked two more times (out of two), 1st interview and “wanna come work for us?”. Its easier the second time since experience is built up already. And im not some extroverted silver tongued devil or anything. The right interviewer at the right time.
Why yes, I do thrive under pressure. It’s why I use a weighted blanket.
I’d like to be
Under the sea
In an octopus’s garden
in the shade
Before I graduated I was encouraged to apply for a job that required a four year degree.
Don’t worry about it - we know you, they said.
When I submitted my application online it was automatically rejected because the application program correctly flagged that I didn’t meet the requirement of having a four year degree.
This is when you call them directly and tell them that. They can override the automation.
and if they won’t/can’t, then there’s an easy answer as to whether it’s worth working there at all
So, what do you do? The problem is it’s also difficult from the hiring side. Every opening has dozens to hundreds of applicants, most of whom are not qualified. No one can keep up with that, and recruiters/hr are horrible at it. Automation sucks, but it’s the quickest, easiest, fairest way to identify a smaller group that you hope are the ones who are qualified
We can put someone like an intern at the top of the pile because we know them, officially.
Sounds like you need to rotate your technical staff into the recruiting process.
Do they spend any time speaking with recruitment/hr?
Of course we all give feedback to recruiters, and typically ask for a new pile with the adjusted criteria. There’s even been times when we asked for everything, no filters, but we can’t afford to have technical people tied up going through piles of resumes
I do believe it’s tougher than it looks. Recruiters need to understand the field to know what to look for, and understand enough about what the company is looking for but they just don’t.
Earlier in my career it seemed like there were specialist recruiters who could do that: find the right people to place with the right company. However now it seems to have degenerated into salesmanship and quantity over quality. Or I don’t know if I’m just earlier in the process now, helping to identify who is worth interviewing, rather than just being another interviewer
Its systems like that forced me to get an expensive qualification that I don’t need simply so humans will actually see my resume. I don’t need the qualification, I have industry experience going back over a decade but because I don’t have a magical qualification, that is recognized by the entire industry as being utterly useless, that didn’t even exist when I started in the industry I had to fork out £600.
But how do they know you don’t need the qualification? I’m sure the people who know you could say, but what makes you qualified to a stranger?
It’s the same problem as standardized testing for school. Everyone seems u to understand it’s a bad idea except that you need something
That whole routine doesn’t magically make sense to neurotypical people either.
Neurotypical people are more “morally flexible.” Which sounds like hypocricy and corruption to me. Assume NT’s have ultirior motives and it becomes a easier to read between the lines.
That’s a rather uncharitable, and frankly conspiratorial, way of viewing things lol
“This is my experience.”
“You’re wrong.”
If directed at me I’m very curious where you got the impression that they said it was their opinion considering they literally said “Neurotypical people are more morally flexible” and at no point in their comment indicated this was an opinion.
Here’s an opinion: it’s generally good to read a comment in it’s entirety before fighting other people‘s battles and being a useless contrarian.
Spewing words does not make you eloquent.
So they didn’t say it’s an opinion. Cool.
👋
Hypocrisy and corruption are easy to breed from that, true. But the NT is also get a nice set of useful tools from it as well, like choosing their battles, and not painting people into corners.
How those tools are used are basically down to core morality and how you want to apply it to your subordinates, co-workers, and management.
I suspect I’m not fully ante and a lot of those lessons were difficult to figure out.
So far, the other comments have failed to realize that this is actually some of our thought process and way of adapting to neurotypical norms.
I will say that after I get used to a person’s body language and speech patterns, I tend to ease off of assuming ulterior motives (which has bitten me on the ass once or twice).
I think this is more true than most would like to think.
Reality is more nuanced than the words with which we describe it. A lot of NT “flexibility” is about recognising that. But, it often spills over into what is, really, lying.
Or we understand that a lot of the criteria is just a wishlist, and as long as you meet a significant chunk of it, the rest can be learned in the job.
They’re just made of better material.
explanation
…because material as in resource and as in genetic code…
…I’ll see myself out.
And for the record, I’m on the spectrum as well.
I can see where you’re coming from. Some people do have ulterior motives or misaligned morals, so it’s good to stay aware of that possibility. At the same time, assuming that’s true for everyone might not be necessary. Instead, it can be more effective to recognize that bad actors exist and use that knowledge to look at situations from multiple angles when needed. This approach helped me to stay critical and aware at (mostly) the right times, without jumping to conclusions too soon.
