Skip to content
loading...

re: Terrible Interview Questions VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: My experience. We hire a secretary and in 3 months, maternity-leave. So, we hire another secretary, 4 months and again, maternity-leave. Finally,...
 

BECAUUUUSEE _____ FILL THE BLANK.

Anyways, fact > wishful thinking, no matter if you like it or not.

ps: don't be dumb, don't kill the messenger. I just say what happens.

I look at the sky and it looks blue but I am not blue. How is it a mirror?.

Perceptions arise from the mind, and they are mirrors of the mind, rather than facts. When you say "I am not blue," you are saying "my body is not blue." But you are no more your body than your foot is your shoe. What you perceive the sky to be is a reflection of your belief of what the sky is.

Philosophical rhetoric does not work well with engineers. :-3

I can take a photo of the sky and calculate the RGB, so the biased perception turns into a fact.

Now, a for a profit company is FORCED to act in pro of profit. It doesn't mean that the company must act as an a*hole or a greedy b*.

We have two candidates, one is most likely that will not work at full (maternity leave, sick leave, personal troubles, drugs problem, inept, incapable of doing the work, untrained, or simply irresponsible), while the other candidate will (hopefully) work fully.

Why would the company hire the first candidate?.

And if we hire him/her, then how we could dismiss the other candidate:

"Dear candidate, your proposal has been rejected because we hire somebody that is not better, but we should comply with some arbitrary moral/political/biased principles."

Is it fair?.

That assumes that human minds have no effect on the color of the sky, among other things. But we can agree to have different metaphysical views.

The greatest problem with your position is that in order to maximize profit, one must move continually towards the ideal of selling precisely nothing for an infinite amount of money. Human compassion is not part of that goal, therefore, if your first statement is true, the second one must not be, because the company's reason for being is inherently greedy.

No man may serve two masters. In your terms you may serve either love or money, but not both. A for-profit company (and, generally, a not-for-profit company as well) is an institution that serves money first, and love only so long as it's profitable. Your statements are cases in point for an individual who wishes first to rise in the corporate world and bring money to himself, and second to be a compassionate and loving individual.

The greatest problem with your position is that in order to maximize profit, one must move continually towards the ideal of selling precisely nothing for an infinite amount of money. Human compassion is not part of that goal, therefore, if your first statement is true, the second one must not be, because the company's reason for being is inherently greedy.

Are you kidding me?.

Compassion is a valuable asset but, as an asset, it is limited.

You are the leader of a team and one of the relatives of a developer die. Obviously you give him to take some days, if not, you must go to the funeral, a funeral that you don't care or want to go to. It is not your compassion but the compassion of everybody in the business because somebody (not you) must work harder or earn less. But it is the right thing to do.

But we have another developer that skipped a day. He said he feels depressed, so your responsibility as a leader is to "scold him".

  • Developer: I skip the day because I feel depressed.
  • Leader: Do you want to work here?
  • Developer: Yes but...
  • Leader: So, go ahead, and never repeat it.

Why? Because it is the right thing.

But let's say the developer skips another day without any explanation.

You must fire him.

It's easy to say you must feel compassion and I repeat, the compassion is limited and you don't want to waste in somebody that he is not reciprocal with the team and company. He is a PARASITE.

Do companies are greed? Yes, but also the workers (unless they work for free).

No, I am not kidding you. We disagree on your main premise, as such, we disagree entirely. Compassion is invaluable and unlimited. To limit it is to say that something that is compassion is not.

Compassion is not the motivator of the stories in your scenario. Sometimes not attending someone's funeral is the compassionate thing to do (the "right" thing is never something upon which everyone agrees, which suggests that there really isn't any such), sometimes firing someone is the compassionate thing to do. A person may perceive himself to be a parasite, may be in denial about that perception, and at the same time act out that perception as if it were real. The compassionate thing to do might be to ask him to find some other line of work, in the hope that he will find something to do that he really cares about, and in so doing stop perceiving himself as a parasite.

If you hold these ideas about other people in your mind, you motivate yourself to emulate them. "Do unto others before they do unto you" sort of thing. You also justify your own approach to life with these sorts of judgments, not realizing that you are creating the circumstances that you judge, projecting them out into your world, denying that you have done so, and then taking the perception that this is the "real world" that you "see."

So, again, you see, we disagree entirely. :)

code of conduct - report abuse