Interview Questions and Lying in an Job Interview

I've wanted to write on this topic for a while and this post has been a topic that has been mulling around in my mind. The topic initially came to mind when I talked to two friends who were job hunting and in their search applied to Future Shop, the electronic retail giant. To start their application to work there they had to answer some questions on a computer program to determine their suitability for working at Future Shop. Now I'm not aware of the nature of the questions outside the one question they told me about, but the one they talked to me about was very interesting.

The question was a simple one, with what I think is a straightforward answer, 'Have you ever stolen something from a place where you worked?' The answer in the context of a person looking for a job, and being asked that is of course, 'No I've never stolen anything at all, let alone from a place I've worked' or something to that effect. That answer was given by one of my friends, but the other had a much different take on the question. He, being naive, thought that it would be unrealistic to never have taken anything from work before, so he stated that yes he had taken something from a former workplace, a few pens to be exact.

Needless to say that the person who said that he had never stolen anything before was given another few questions to answer and my other friend who said he stole pens (I'm pretty sure he's never stolen anything in his life) was given the message of 'thank you for your application' and no more questions were asked. With that my friend who said he never had stolen anything and myself, had a good time making fun of the naive friend. Yet in the days since then the question stuck in my mind, not because the question itself is interesting, but because of the ramifications it has in the context it is being asked.

I am reminded of the documentary The Fog of War, which is a commentary featuring Robert Mcnamara, the former Secretary of Defense, and his reflection on the life he has lived and the choices he has made. Early on in the film Robert is talking about how he went through school and is put in a position like my friends who applied for Future Shop when he had to do some tests for the Ford Motor company. The interesting question he was given by Ford was. 'What job would you work at in the summer', and there was a list of 4. If memory serves the choices included, a machinist (or something like that) and a florist. Robert knew in this context (An Application for Ford) that machinist was the correct response, despite the fact that Robert had, coincidentally,  actually been a florist in the past and really enjoyed it. He ended up saying that he and the group of fellows he did the test blew the test out of the water due to his, and his friends, ability to understand the question in the context in which those questions were given.

Anyway getting back to the Future Shop question, I can think of 2 types of people (Those who have stolen and those who have never stolen from a job site) and because of that there are 4 possible answers for the question:

1. Those who have stolen and will admit they stole.
2. Those who have stolen and will lie about having stolen anything.
3. Those who haven't stolen and say that they haven't.
4.  The rare case, to which my one friend fits, those who haven't stolen but think that they should say that they have.

From that we can understand the type of people Future Shop is eliminating from there potential employment with that question. People in types 1 and 4 are the type of people eliminated, those people who are honest enough to admit they have stolen in the past and those who have never stolen, but are really poor at judging the answer to a situational question. The people who will get through are those people who will both lie and steal and those who have never stolen in their life.

I'm not sure that this is what Future Shop had in mind when they made up this question, because I think that most people have taken something from a former workplace, probably something trivial like paper or pens or something like that, but won't admit to somewhere they are applying to work that they have ever stolen something. The people who are punished by this question are actually anyone who is really honest, or really misunderstands the question. That is why this question is so interesting. It is because of the limited responses, the implication of those responses and how people always have to take the context into consideration when being asked a question.

I think what this question really shows is how far our society has come in understanding the context of questions, because that is really what the question is about. People generally know the 'correct answer' and what you actually think/what actually occurred are two very different things. This changes the questions from being actually honestly answered to one where people are looking to give the response that is being looked for. It is a system where lying is encouraged and rewarded, a system that punishes honesty. I'm not trying to pass judgment on the system, but simply illuminate what it actually does. So as I continue my on the hunt, knowing that I will be actively looking to 'give the best response' and hope that I'm rewarded for it.

Thanks for reading,

The Moral Skeptic

The Rawlsian Agreement for Health Care

I guess I haven't been drinking often enough to keep posting, but I thought I'd get back to it and try to give a few weekly words of attempted wisdom. One thing I have been doing lately is listening to a lot of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe , and I have become completely enamored with and recommend to everyone....or at least the few people who will read this. I mean where else can you find out about stories of somewhat reputable scientists saying that the universe is stopping the large hadron collider by it being sabotaged through time travel.

Now that I have plugged my favorite podcast, I guess I'll start my blog by creating the idea of the Rawlsian agreement. John Rawls came up with an idea that he thinks would be universally usable to create justice. I'm going to skip the rest of the importance parts of his theory of justice and concentrate on the two principles of justice as fairness, but if your interested you can find them here under the heading of number 4.These principles govern inequalities in a system and say that 1. For any inequality there has to be a fair an equal chance to obtain that inequality for everyone, what is call the fair equality of opportunity. 2. That any inequality be to the advantage of the 'least' members of society, the difference principle. Justice as fairness seems unfeasible at a social level, but I think it would work well for a setting up a system of health care.

      It may seem that this would only work with a public system but it doesn't mean I'm totally against a private option in some cases, all cases in fact, with the exception of cases where people would refuse to let someone ahead of them even if would be for the betterment of society, kind of a Rawlsian agreement for making things unequal. For example most people with a minor injury would let someone go ahead of them in the hospital line for 100 dollars or so, but no one would move back in the waiting list for a new heart or kidney for that amount of money. It might be argued that, that person may move back for 1 000 000 dollars, even if it did put them at a much greater risk of death or serious debilitation. That may be true the money may be too good to turn down, but I find that the 1 000 000 dollar situation would be unethical in a way that society in Canada at least agrees with. No one can pay 1 000 000 dollars to kill someone else, but they could pay 100 dollars to move ahead of them in line. I hope that example makes the idea consistent with societies ethics and understandable.

A whole medical system could be set up like this, made up with Rawlsian agreements with limits. This system would be two tiered, but set up for all the inequalities to be to the advantage to those in the second tier. I understand this would take a lot of work to set up, but it would end up being universal health care that was helped by the rich subsidizing the care for the poor, a real trickle down effect.

I'm interested in what people think of the Rawlsian agreement and what problems this system would have, hope to get some response with this and I'll try to continue to blog more often.

Thanks for reading,

The Moral Skeptic