If I'm being frank, then you need to be up front about that in the job posting. "Cultural fit" and other PC BS won't cut it - be honest about what you need.

"We need someone who can design and implement frontends alongside our product marketing group." Not, "Looking for a JavaScript, Typescript, Angular, React, Node.js, Mongo, and BerkleyDB rockstar."

Because I've personally watched several people who were cultural fits and great talkers be PIPed and fired purely for the lack of an ability to execute technical tasks.

I've written and deleted this message a dozen times trying to get it right without it coming off as an attack. I hope you won't take it that way because I'm genuinely trying to be helpful. The way you parse "Looking for a JavaScript, Typescript, Angular, React, Node.js, Mongo, and BerkleyDB rockstar." sounds like the way I would expect an autistic person to parse it, too literally. Every job everywhere has an implied requirement that you will be able to communicate and work effectively alongside other humans. Since it's a requirement everywhere, hardly anyone will list it explicitly.

When I read:

>"Looking for a JavaScript, Typescript, Angular, React, Node.js, Mongo, and BerkleyDB rockstar."

I parse it as:

"We need someone who can design and implement frontends alongside our product marketing group. Our technology stack is JavaScript, Typescript, Angular, React, Node.js, Mongo, and BerkleyDB."

Your point would be made just as well if not better with the first paragraph elided entirely. In general when you rewrite something so many times, it means you should say less

I was trying to solve two problems.

The first problem is for people not on the spectrum to recognize that I wasn't trying to speak to the OP as if they were a simpleton. Because for a person not on the spectrum the implied requirement is obvious.

The second problem is a message to people like myself on the spectrum, "This is a new social rule to add to your matrix for interpreting behavior."

Eliminating the first paragraph entirely would have decreased the likelihood of creating the new rule in spectrum people while simultaneously seeming like I was being snarky to non-spectrum people. It's entirely probable that I failed in both my goals in spite of this.

> Every job everywhere has an implied requirement that you will be able to communicate and work effectively alongside other humans. Since it's a requirement everywhere, hardly anyone will list it explicitly.

That is true. But there is a huge variability in degree, both on the side of the candidates and on the side of the jobs. I think most people would agree that saying "we need an efficient programmer" is insufficient detail. The same is true for a requirement like "needs to be able to communicate and work effectively alongside other humans."

Considering how many of their target audience will parse it too literally, perhaps it is the message that is wrong. It's not purely on us to learn to communicate, the business and recruiters must learn to communicate with us as well.

On the other hand, I think recruiters take it way to literally too. The will quiz candidates and their experience on everything in the list and drop people that don't know 1 or 2 of them (and the liars will get through).

Who do you think you're trying to hire? Of course there's going to be a large number of people who take it literally.

I'm confused by which side you're comparing to the bit in your last sentence to. All they did was fit in and talk? That's not enough.

You have to be able to navigate the work environment and find a way to get stuff delivered. Which your "design and implement" part captures, but "cultural fit and great talker" doesn't.

It’s always a combination. Most of us work in “old” tech. I use 10-20 year old tools, languges.

But good practices and clean code habits are older than that.