> My mind never stops and there's virtually nothing in the world I have not "considered"

One piece of advice my mom gave me which I always follow is: don't tell them (a company/job/boss) anything that could be used against you. There's no need to be truthful here, this isn't a consultation with your doctor. So lie, tell them you're healthy, you never had any problems with anyone ever, never admit to anything. Truth is for your doctor or your therapist (and your mom!).

(There's also a fun related video that sometimes makes the rounds, "never talk to cops" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE). I suppose it's specific to US law, but I find it interesting nonetheless).

For those of you who are like I used to be and are just honest in an unfiltered way that sometimes caused you trouble: don’t think of it as lying, think of it as keeping secrets. You can also view it as maintaining a personal boundary, which is not something people of my generation were brought up with. We all keep secrets to some extent: shameful memories we do not readily recount; job confidentiality; things we only share with our doctor or therapist. Just be like that more, it’s okay to be a bit of a mystery to others, and you can do this while still divulging a ton of stuff about yourself. Lying just feels stupid and wrong. Pretend you are a spy in this life, and you can consciously choose what face to present to anyone.

> You can also view it as maintaining a personal boundary, which is not something people of my generation were brought up with.

Which generation do you belong to, out of curiosity?

I am presently 46 years old.

Yes! Like I clarified in another comment, I didn't really meant "lying" but "not volunteering/selectively withholding information".

I've watched that video several times; as somebody "largely" honest, I need it to pragmatically re-adjust my perspective every few years - because I TOTALLY am the person who would inherently monologue for 3 hours when asked a simple question by a cop :)

The other piece of advice is trickier, and I personally do not follow it too closely (everything in life is circumstantial:). Two aspects to mention:

1. Often, a lie is more harmful than a slightly harmful truth. And opportunities to get caught in a lie start with the application process - some applications have multiple seemingly unrelated or different questions that aim to reinforce the validity of your claims; this will also sometimes be reinforced with interviews, reference checks, etc. And then if you get the job or grant or whatever, there's still the risk of getting caught at virtually any point in the future.

My wife and a few of her friends have been HR managers at quite varied corporations, and universally they lament that people get fired over an insignificant lie. What they lied about might've been a verbal "Hey don't do that" or a formal reprimand, but lie got them immediately fired.

2. Variation of that but, perfection and/or fakeness can stand out. Not to say there aren't people who can lie/fake perfectly, and sometimes many of us think that we can pull it off better than we can. But while I cannot claim that I have never fibbed or concealed in my life, last few decades I've been lucky enough that I didn't need to.

And luck is an important word; I've been lucky professionally since I came to Canada, which enabled me to have good success going counter to that advice: e.g. to every new manager, I proactively indicate explicitly that I "Attended university but have not graduated", I came extremely upfront when I started photography business even though it had nothing to do with my IT dayjob, etc. I find one's experience at large companies is partially shaped by formal policies written by people far away from you, but also hugely by the actual people surrounding you, and I've been lucky / chosen well over the years. Milleage most definitely WILL vary, and I've been in sufficiently different / more precarious or dangerous situations to be fairly aware of my current privilege.

Agreed about not outright lying. I think my mom's advice -- the way I interpret it, anyway -- is more "don't volunteer information". Sometimes you have to answer honestly if they ask you a direct question about a concrete fact they can doublecheck in alternative ways, but otherwise: don't volunteer information. Don't be a "completionist", if they ask you "have you ever considered [something naughty]" the truth is only for your therapist; for HR it's always "no, never!".

I believe you should have the same attitude when giving an interview e.g. to a member of the media. They will make it feel like a personal conversation which is intended to get you to share your story and views, but in the end they are really telling their story and their views, and will use what you say to support that whether you agree with what they are saying or not.

> I TOTALLY am the person who would inherently monologue for 3 hours when asked a simple question by a cop

Then for you especially, but really for everyone -- don't talk to the cop without a lawyer. Just don't. (at least if you are in the USA).

For all the reasons you mention. Lying to the cops can be committing a crime in itself. Trying to think it through and figure out exactly how much of the truth to tell in what way -- can either leave you accidentally committing the crime of lying to the cop, OR accidentally incriminating yourself (even if you don't think you've done anything wrong). The cops have way more training and practice and experience at this interaction than you, you will not outsmart them.

In the USA (and probably other places, but I know the USA), you have the right to not talk to the cops without a lawyer, and you should exercize it, even if you think you've done nothing wrong. (Plenty of people who think they've done nothing wrong end up screwed by the cops).

The video I linked to, which frequently makes the rounds, is essentially a defense attorney explaining that you should never speak to cops, even if you're innocent, and gives plenty of examples of innocent people that ended up convicted of something just because they thought they were safe (because they didn't do anything). For example, he explains even an innocent person making an innocent mistake while recollecting the facts to the cops can get screwed, whereas an innocent person who simply won't talk to them cannot get screwed as easily.

I'll repost it here for emphasis. I'm sure this applies mostly to the US, and also that the attorney is overstating his case a bit for comedic effect, but I'm also convinced that what he's saying is mostly right for (at least, for the US legal system).

Again, for emphasis: he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Yep.

I am good friends with police officers and firmly believe that _most_ of them are good people trying to do good work.

But the most succinct way to put it is: if you are an innocent person, you simply have nothing to gain by talking to the cops without a lawyer. And potentially everything to lose if they choose to pin something on you somehow.

"he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!"

I think it is wrong to overgeneralize.

What if the cops ask you about a missing kid, where you are innocent and actually might have information to get that kid back alive, because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X?

I recommend you watch the video.

If the cops ask you about a missing kid, you don't know that you are not a suspect. You cannot know, actually. If you are a suspect -- regardless of your innocence -- and you talk to the cops without a lawyer, you may implicate yourself in some way. Yes, innocence doesn't matter one iota. Having factual evidence about the kidnapping could conceivably implicate you faster. Recollecting what you thought happened and making an honest mistake can potentially implicate you. The video goes into examples of this.

Really, watch the video.

I watched that video, but I refuse to see cops always as the enemy.

So maybe let me refine my question, what if it is your neighbors child, you know closely or even your own child. You still would not talk to the cops, out of the fear that they wrongly suspect you and have a dead child on your consciousness?

I mean, I am not from the US, but if your police is really that bad, I think you gotta change something.

And I watched that video (some years ago) and if I remember it right, in his example the person that stupidly talked to the cops, was actually guilty.

I'm not from the US either, and this is about their legal system I think. Whether they need to change this is up to them.

This attorney seems to think the Fifth is enough, but people don't know they can use it. He doesn't think cops are bad, where did you get this idea?

> So maybe let me refine my question, what if it is your neighbors child, you know closely or even your own child. You still would not talk to the cops, out of the fear that they wrongly suspect you and have a dead child on your consciousness?

Yes, that's the advice. You shouldn't talk to the cops without a lawyer even in this case, lest you end up implicated in a crime. If you want to talk, lawyer up!

The attorney speaks from experience and he is an expert. The cop next to him agrees; in fact most cops recommend their children never to talk to cops! If you ever live in the US, ignore this advice at your own peril.

To my other comment, let me add that this follow up video by Duane specifically addresses your scenario: the concerned parents of a missing girl unwisely spoke to the cops, without knowing they were suspects in the case (because the cops regularly suspect this, "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime" as one cop put it).

In this case, the cops suspected the father. After they found the body of the daughter, which had drowned, they didn't tell the father (because he was a suspect but they didn't want to read him his rights) and claimed to be still looking for her in order to continue incriminating her father. His mistake: volunteering to talk to the cops without a lawyer.

Watch it here, I've picked the right timestamp for you: https://youtu.be/-FENubmZGj8?t=1202

By volunteering to talk to the cops, you may also end up providing information that -- according to the cops -- "only the killer could have known". Oops! Even worse, if the interview wasn't taped (and in some cases, even if it was!) the cops can claim, either mistakenly or on purpose, that you provided self-incriminating evidence even if you didn't. Duane provides examples of how, even if your answers are taped but the cops' questions aren't, seemingly innocent answers can get you in trouble. Example: "I swear I've never touched a gun in my life" (cops: "we didn't mention the murder weapon, how did he know it was a gun? We didn't ask this. Suspicious!").

And what about this scenario, I described above:

"because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X? "

Assuming the kid is still alive and was in that van (which you do not know) - but by providing that info to the cops, they could track down the adress of the kidnappers and save that child.

I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing it.

But like I said, if the assumption is (like Duane apparently has), that cops are always bad, corrupt and the enemy, well, then this is the problem to deal with.

And about that poor father:

"but was actually being interrogated as the prime suspect. His mistake: volunteering to talk to the cops without a lawyer."

He didn't ended up in jail, right? He was just wrongfully accused and interrogated in a very wrong way adding to his misery. That chance wouldn't stop me from cooperating with the police, if there is a chance to save someone.

This is an interesting debate but one thing to correct, Duane (and many though probably not all other proponents of "don't speak to cops") are NOT saying that cops are bad, or corrupt. This is not a necessary condition for this advice.

One thing that most people don't understand is that cops are 1. regular people 2. with a job; and most people misunderstand what that job is.

In criminal cases like this, a lot of their job is "gather evidence that can be used to prosecute". They will approach it with certain amount of professionalism, jadedness, focus, empathy, skill, awareness etc based on how much of it they started with and how much of it has worn off in this harsh harsh profession. On the other hand, from young age, we are taught their job is "to protect you", which we tend to subconsciously personalize and interpret as "protect me" and therefore "are implicitly on my side".

Two of my close friends are cops, for one I photographed their wedding, and... stories are fascinating and completely not what the naive child in me would expected. My friends are good people trying to do a good job. We are just brought up with a misapprehension as to what that job is.

Exactly. I think Duane's point is that police corruption and ill-intent are not at all necessary for a miscarriage of justice to occur. The cops doing their job, using their tricks of the trade, or committing human mistakes, are enough for injustice to happen.

> I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing it.

In your scenario, there are definitely downsides to providing this information by talking to cops: you can get implicated and even convicted of the crime, and the actual criminal be left alone. At any time during your conversation with the cops, they may decide you know too much (or know details only the kidnapper would know), or find some turn of phrase suspicious, and turn you into the primary suspect. Remember Duane's claim that many cops believe "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime". This applies here, too.

The downside is pretty big: not only could you be in legal trouble -- even convicted -- but the actual criminal could get away. This is not hypothetical, since Duane mentions cases where this happened! (E.g. the man wrongfully convicted of killing his wife; or the man wrongfully convicted of killing a local shopkeeper after volunteering to help the police find the killer, out of a sense of civic duty).

If at all possible in your country, I would advise you to report this information to a missing children hotline unaffiliated with the police, instead of speaking to the cops without a lawyer.

> But like I said, if the assumption is (like Duane apparently has), that cops are always bad, corrupt and the enemy, well, then this is the problem to deal with.

This is not at all what Duane claims. Respectfully, I must ask you to refresh your memory of the video. I also recommend the follow up video which I linked to, where he explains his motivation (i.e. decreasing the appalling number of wrongful convictions in the US).

> He didn't ended up in jail, right? He was just wrongfully accused and interrogated in a very wrong way adding to his misery. That chance wouldn't stop me from cooperating with the police, if there is a chance to save someone.

We don't know whether he ended in jail or not, Duane doesn't say. We only know he got in real trouble, and this after the cops knew his daughter was dead, so at that point there was no possible way to "save" anyone. He does mention at least two cases where an innocent ended up in jail, one of them for 20+ years, while the assassin of his wife got away. His mistake? He spoke to the police, volunteering information, and without a lawyer present.

It's of course your choice to risk it and speak to the police without a lawyer. In the US, it's a risky, unwise choice -- one cops wouldn't take themselves, for example -- but it's your choice. A choice your attorney would strongly urge you not to take, but that you're entitled to take anyway.

"In your scenario, there are definitely downsides to providing this information by talking to cops: you can get implicated and even convicted of the crime"

Or you can be responsible for the death of a child. With kidnapping and possible sex crimes, it can be a matter of minutes between life and death. And if I have seen something and can pass that information directly to the officer investigating the case, then I will do it, instead of taking hours preparing my legal defenses risking it all.

"It's of course your choice to risk it and speak to the police without a lawyer."

And I did talk to the police without a lawyer in a couple of situations. As a wittness and also as accused (actually a bit like Duane describes, meaning they did not tell me that, asking me only wittness questions, but I knew).

"This is not at all what Duane claims."

No it is not, but this is what his advice implies for me, if it means I should not help finding a missing child without contacting a lawyer first.

I know that people have been wrongfully thrown in jail and worse. But overgeneralisation is never helpful. So yes, if there is time (and money!), a lawyer is helpful, but lawyers can make misstakes too and if it is a matter of life and death and minutes, I take those chances to potentially save someone and I would be surprised, if you wouldn't, if you come into such a situation in reality.

> Or you can be responsible for the death of a child

This is unrelated to whether you speak to the police. In fact, you can be indirectly responsible of a death because you speak to the police, making them narrow down their investigations on you ("9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who did it"), wasting time and letting the criminal go unimpeded for enough time to kill someone. Duane provides examples of this, which for some reason you insist on disregarding.

If you want to help, I'd say call a non-police missing children hotline instead, if those exist in your country.

> And if I have seen something and can pass that information directly to the officer investigating the case, then I will do it, instead of taking hours preparing my legal defenses risking it all.

You're risking spending 20 years in jail or even death row, then (not hyperbole: watch Duane's video). You don't need to spend hours preparing anything, just call a lawyer.

> And I did talk to the police without a lawyer in a couple of situations.

By your own admission, you don't live in the US. While I'd really hesitate to involve the police even in my country (where they are truly corrupt and dangerous), Duane's advice is specific to the US. It doesn't necessarily translate to other countries.

> But overgeneralisation is never helpful.

In this case, it seems that it's the truth rather than "overgeneralization" (Duane mocks these warnings "not to generalize" in his video, to great effect! "But what if I'm about to fall from a cliff and the only person who can help is a cop, should I talk to them?"). This lawyer speaks from experience and is an expert on the Fifth Amendment; you are not. Cops agree with him and follow his advice. He has plenty of evidence to back his advice.

Ignore him at your own peril. You're free to do so, but it's unwise.

That's a very unfortunate side effect of a legal system and style of policing that, instead of being carried out reasonably by building trust and respecting rights of citizens, violates rapport and human rights at every step of the way with no repercussions for people in power.

Then you have to ask yourself whether helping with something like that is worth sticking your neck out. But make no mistake that you're doing exactly that.

And if you've ever applied for life insurance, you may also know that consultations with your doctor should also be treated similarly, lest they use a casual mention of smoking a cigar 17 years ago as grounds to increase your rate or deny coverage altogether.

> There's no need to be truthful here, this isn't a consultation with your doctor.

Even then, depending on your demographic, being honest about things like pain might get you labelled as a drug seeker.

I'm like you. An ex of mine claimed that most people never even think about committing suicide. It's hard for me to understand how anyone could avoid such an obvious thought, but I have since seen a lot of evidence that some people's minds really don't explore the possibility space, and when they do it's only along prescribed paths... So I guess it's possible?

I find this concept fascinating, where can I read more?

[Fox News joke removed since upon further reflection it wasn't funny]

Seriously though, I suppose I was misusing the word "evidence" here... I haven't actually studied this beyond observing and talking to people I know. I would also be interested in reading on the topic if anyone can suggest something!

Vouching for this. It's off-topic and a little inflammatory but I started that, and it taught me the word kayfabe. Thanks to dang for introducing me to the vouch feature.

I'm sad that Slava_Propanei's comment below is dead. I'm stoked to learned the word "keyfabe."

You can vouch for [dead] comments. When enough users do that, it will come back to life. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cvouch.

FWIW, this sort of issue is a serious problem for many people with severe OCD. Basically a thought comes into their minds, about something disturbing or taboo, and they start obsessing over the fact they had the thought, because they're so distraught about the idea it would even come into their mind. In most cases, they are so far from actually doing anything related to the thought, and that's why they are so distraught. This leads to penitential behavior, and compulsions, etc.

Sometimes figuring out if they're just obsessing because they're worried about a thought, versus actually perseverating over a potentially actionable drive, is really really difficult.

Not saying you have OCD, it's just a whole area that can lead to seriously debilitating problems for some individuals.

Interesting; that makes a lot of sense. This insight makes me think there's a continuum between brains set to "control all thoughts" and brains set to "autmatically explore all possibilities."

I think I'm pretty neurotypical and fall somewhere in the middle, but I can see how a minor change in that "setting" would have a big impact on my behavior.

That's the main difference between OCD and not.

I actually feel like this is a good argument for normalizing the fact that probably everyone has thoughts about suicide (as OP said, thinking about the implications versus considering).

I remember a period of my life where I was struggling a bit more than normal with anxiety, and my creative / intrusive brain was like "how about you think on the concept of suicide?" to which my brain responded "wow now you're thinking about suicide, you should really seek help".

In reality, it was just an intrusive thought. But the fact that my brain jumped on that thought, and ruminated on it as "if the thought popped into my head, maybe I'm not OK", that was the thing that caused problems.

I think it is possible and I think it helps to explore what you don't think about. Everyone has things that never/rarely occur to them to consider performing as an action, even people with significantly broader consideration-spheres than others. For example, I've considered suicide but never going pro in ballet. I've considered stealing from my employer but never becoming an opera influencer. I'm less athletic than a sibling of mine, so things like vaulting over fences/climbing trees aren't things I that would even occur to me to perform but my sibling is always thinking of ways they can get over and around physical obstacles with their body.

I don't think that it's some people follow prescribed paths. I think everyone has familiar and less-familiar paths, and some paths are totally out of the way. And I think the overlap of what's considered familiar and what's considered out of the way have much less overlap than is commonly understood.

Unfortunately, now I have considered going pro in ballet (result: not going to happen), becoming an opera influencer (result: highly unlikely but not absolutely impossible; can I reasonably work towards the return of the comic operetta? Probably not without writing one. I could manage the book but not the music. Who do I know who might want to write the music?) and I have frequently considered but discarded the likelihood of vaulting over most fences and climbing most trees.

Thanks.

But that's the thing, right, you didn't consider those things before. There's no difference between not having considered suicide and not having considered pro ballet and it doesn't reflect anything about you in particular. That's why I'm saying I don't think it's incomprehensible that some people just haven't thought of things you've considered before. Because obviously you also haven't thought of things to consider until someone else (myself) brought them up.

It boils down to a semantic argument. People have differing definitions of what it means to "think about committing suicide". If you're up on top of a tall object and happen to imagine yourself plummeting over the edge even without any intention to do so, some people will consider that "thinking about it", and some people won't.

The useful interpretation is to exercise empathy and put yourself in the mind of the person writing the questionnaire, and ask what definition they are likely using. For example, your therapist doesn't care if you had a random intrusive thought thirty years ago, they care if you presently have actual designs of self-harm. Likewise, in the OP, the person interpreting the security clearance doesn't care if you were accidentally caught up in a silly witch hunt when you were 12.

It's impractical for everyone and impossible for some people to interpret every question through the lens of the person asking the question. The use of American euphemisms is constantly changing and it is unreasonable to expect non-native English speakers or neurodivergent people to keep up.

Practice empathy. Guess at others' intent in order to do your best to give others the information that they want. But then insist that they use plain English in the future and that doing otherwise is wrong.

https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/

> if you speak directly, what will be heard by your listeners is whatever your statements are presumed to imply, not what is actually stated—regardless of whether or not those implications are intended or not.

This pretty well sums up my experience of the HN comments section.

I agree that one should attempt to answer the /intended/ question.

In this case, however, it wasn't semantic. My ex and I were on the same page as to how we were using "think". She was claiming that by our shared definition of think, most people didn't, and we did.

That might be related to why it's such a taboo subject - people fear that even mentioning the word 'suicide' will cause some people to starting making deliberate plans to end their own life. (It's certainly a rather depressing topic, not suitable for small talk or dinner conversation, and people who are always bringing it up probably could use some therapist time.)

The effect is similar to the statement, "don't think of a blue elephant" - it's pretty hard to not immediately think of some kind of a blue elephant (Dumbo the Disney character? A wild African elephant that got blue mud all over it? A painted elephant in a Indian potentate's parade? Etc.)

Psychologists use the term 'ideation' to distinguish between merely thinking about a topic, versus obsessing over a topic, making plans related to a topic, and so on.

I would think that you have been using the word "considered" rather lightly. To me, it means careful thought and deliberation, not just "the thought crossed my mind at some point".

Yes and No.

I have "Considered" stealing from my employer several times. When I was 15 I was a refugee and worked in a Radio-Shack-like store in Croatia. We built PCs in back and sold them in the front. The front and back were separated by a curtain, and highest value items (ram sticks) happened to be stashed on the shelf on the side of the entrance. I realized it would take literally 5 seconds for a customer to reach through the curtain and grab them. That got me thinking on whether as an insider I would have higher or lower risk than a random customer. How could I reduce the risk? What's a simple, non-overly-elaborate method that would let me accomplish this? So I did spend some time considering this problem space (and then next day suggested to my boss to move the RAM further inside:)

Similarly with suicide. Everybody's life is hard and has ups and downs. I've "considered" suicide in several different ways many times in my life, sometimes at "obvious" times of hardship, otherwise at simply slow, boring times. I'm largely a cheerful optimistic person FWIW, but I find everything interesting even fascinating, including that particular life (ending) choice.

Talking to couple of my closest oldest friends, who are most similar to me, they have few mental taboos. But talking to most other people, at least as far as they're willing to be honest with me and/or themselves, they have never considered SO MANY topics, virtually regardless of how light or heavy we define the word.

Yup. "Considered" is certainly ambiguous enough to be a failure in the context of a job application.

When I was working at IBM, a my manager introduced me in passing to one of his peers who was getting a huge promotion, about three levels up. Why such an unusual promotion? He'd noticed a way that 4 people could conspire to exfiltrate $25 million on a Friday and be in some non-extradition country before it was noticed. He had reported this flaw, and they were promoting him for alerting them. He had certainly "considered" quite deeply stealing from his employer, and was being rewarded for doing the right thing.

And, of course, an honest answer on his BestBuy app would have disqualified him.

We can quibble about the meaning, but this is an absolute fail on the job application, unless the goal is to filter out intelligent people who have naturally curious minds.

There is a huge difference between thinking about something and taking action to do it. You have brought us another great example of utter cluelessness in corporate HR.

> but this is an absolute fail on the job application, unless the goal is to filter out intelligent people who have naturally curious minds.

Not sure why you think this is a crazy goal for a retail job. If you can't figure out that you should say "no" to the stealing question, no matter what the truth is, then you're probably not a good fit to work retail.

In fact, I'd bet that most of the "yes" answers to this question are people who are curious but have poor social understanding. I imagine that someone who really would steal is also dishonest enough to lie on the question.

>>I imagine that someone who really would steal is also dishonest enough to lie on the question.

Bingo!

I do expect that there are attempts to filter out overly intelligent people for some jobs. There was a lawsuit in Connecticut by an applicant who scored too high on the police exam and was denied a job. He lost the case, and established the right for police to reject people for being too smart as they might get bored or something (sorry, I don't have a link on hand).

But, as you point out, this question filters out only the honest and intelligent people.

It leaves you with the pool of people who are either dull or dishonest. Classic HR fail.

Found this because I was curious (and this was the first non-paywall link that I knew the domain from, sorry if there are other, more reputable sources): https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

Looks like the reason is: we refuse all smart people equally and it's a means to reduce turnover...

What a joke.

Don't underestimate how stupid criminals can be. It's not like the prisons are empty because no one ever gets caught.

My hunch is that this is a third of the reason why politicians give “politician answers” to things that most people believe are straightforward yes-or-no questions.

Nitpicking that thinking about a vulnerability is not the same as considering exploiting that vulnerability.

exactly the point — that nit falls well within the ambiguity of the wording

(and yes, if you're reasonably sharp and not a super-stickler, you should be able to suss out the screening intent of the question, constrain the current meaning of "consider", and answer "No" regardless of your previous thoughts and understanding of the word — it's not like thoughtcrime is prosecutable ...yet)

I'm not so sure about that. If you spend a lot of time mentally disengaged, (walking, exercising, commuting, etc.) you have lots of opportunities to deeply consider many things that you have no intention of doing.

And there are many who do use “considered” to mean that a thought crossed their mind. Surely this does not shock you.

The problem is not the interpretation of a word. The problem is how the ocean of other people answered this question. There comes a point when being honest is completely stupid, and when most people use the word honesty they don’t mean to cross into the completely stupid territory.

That being said I’d consider such a person to be a fine candidate for friendship.

Perhaps filtering out stupid people is the goal of the question.

No one is completely honest. Courtesy is the art of lying.

I have met those who can walk a very narrow line, being gracious and courteous without compromising their strict religious sense of honesty. But it takes a rather uniquely strong person to have it all — courtesy and honesty at the same time. Most people know they cannot have both at the same time so they develop a shared understanding of honesty which permits gracious lies.

In this context, I think “considered,” here, is best understood as:

“Have I deliberated over whether or not to do this?”

Not:

“Have I thought, in the abstract, about how I might do this, or what it might be like?”

Yes, more like, "wanted" (to do) it.

In a similar vein... while driving down the road, have you ever "considered" just pulling into the opposing lane? I'd never ever do that, but I've considered others driving into my lane, which leads me to consider myself doing that to their lane.

Lots of other similar "I'd never do that" situations I've definitely considered.

I admire your honesty though. 99% of people would lie.

L'appel du vide in one of its more commonly manifested forms.

The call of the void is a natural instinct evolved to help judge possibly (dis)advantageous choices.

As long as you label it as an "intrusive thought," and it isn't incredibly (daily) common, that is perfectly normal.

I always figured that the "call of the void" was to illustrate to us what a careless movement could lead to. So that we will shy away from the edge or constantly second guess our movements for danger while we remain.

"Uh-uh-uh - Turning the car into oncoming traffic ... is counter productive!" has been a Jim Carrey tag-line for decades: https://youtu.be/4YnslaUd4VY

At a family gathering we were all sharing we've considered this while driving. Not specifically veering into oncoming traffic but "what if" things like letting go of the wheel, intentionally driving into a ditch at high speed, etc.

One person in my family claims they've never had this thought ever, and it truly baffles me.

Instead, the companies want people willing to lie on forms.

5+ years experience in a language/technology that only appeared 2 years ago!

Congratulations, you will only hire liars. Which I think describes 90% of hiring these days.

No, that actually means they want a specific person, indeed not mentioned in the listing. When the right person applies, all those unsatisfiable requirements are suddenly ignored.

Indeed. If you insist on only hiring people who answer the question a certain way, don't be surprised when you hire a bunch of liars.

On the word “consider”: A friend of mine tells a story about his dad and his appreciation for the practicality of a brick house.

Someone once asked him “Would you ever consider putting any other siding on your house besides brick?”

His answer: “I’d consider it. And then I’d brick it.”

Bricks have bad failure modes in earthquake prone areas.

Worst case: falling over and killing people in an earthquake (happened especially with many commercial properties in my hometown, Christchurch, in 2011 earthquake).

Even with very minor damage you end up with fine mortar cracks so sealing fails, and wind blows water through cracks. Nobody fixes cracks properly so the problem is hidden by the repointing and painting over, and also cracks reopen on minor aftershocks years later.

I like bricks, but I would avoid them in say California.

Tangent: Some historic brick-built structurer in Cali are reinforced by apply fiberglass resin (just the resin, no fibers) to the surface of the bricks. This usually manifests as a glossy clear layer completely covering brickwork of the ground floor, followed by narrower and narrower strips of resin for the next floors. It can be applied to interior, exterior, or both surfaces, depending on assessment of the structure.

Mindfulness meditation may help calm the racing mind.

I did that while taking a polygraph administered by a representative of a three letter agency. He said I was being deceptive.

Did you explain that you were just pretending to be deceptive, b it were in fact fully cooperating?

It was clear the examiner had no sense of humor. So no. But when he said I was being deceptive I asked "In what way?" And he said "You tell me." And so we ended in a standoff.

Thanks, I've heard that over time; I've tried a bit of mindfulness over the years and I see the value in it, I just haven't been able to harness it yet. I've tried some guided audio body focus mindfulness/meditation and 1. Most of it tries too hard and loses me with "Third Eye" and "Spirit world" "and chakra energy frequency balance" 2. Most of it starts from toes and turns out I need to start from center (ridiculous preference but apparently true for me:) and 3. Most importantly, unsurprisingly, I suck at it. I keep trying every now and then; maybe I'll give it another go :)

Abandon guided meditations and audio-based meditations, and focus to a simple programme of breath-focus. You just:

1. sit quietly and comfortably

2. breathe through your nose

3. find the feeling of air moving in and out of your nose

4. observe that feeling of air

5. if your mind starts observing other thoughts instead of the breath feeling -- 'I have an itch', 'this sitting position is uncomfortable', 'what about my meeting tomorrow' -- you notice your observation has left the air-in-your-nose feeling, and you gently redirect it back to focusing on that instead of the thoughts.

6. Repeat. You'll slowly increase from 2-3 seconds of focus to minutes at a time.

> 3. Most importantly, unsurprisingly, I suck at it. I keep trying every now and then; maybe I'll give it another go :)

You're better off with 3-5 minutes daily, regularly, than with longer sessions sporadically. It's a matter of practice and getting the knack of concentration down. Slowly increase to 10-15 minutes a day over a month or two, and really focus on getting the technique mastered more than anything.

The book Mindfulness in Plain English is both available freely online, and my favourite guide to getting it right.

This is basically the idea. Exact techniques vary, but the point is to keep gently re-focusing on something minor and physical. It doesn't really matter what it is, scan direction vs breath flow vs something else, none of it matters, just pick one and work on focusing.

When you sit you may feel discomfort of a kind that makes you want to move. Sit for a bit longer. The discomfort will move rapidly from place to place, since it is an artifact of the revolutions of the mind stuff.

It's kind of like spam subject lines... a call to action.

My nose is bleeding? I need to... Wait, my ankle is killing me, let me just... Oh, no, now my back, quick stretch will ... Hmm, I'd be so much more meditative if I just pop on to Amazon and order a proper cushion...

Just sit. You'll be fine.

Remember that the word user also governs the skeletal muscles. Not the most ideal situation, but you have to expect some strange things if you grow such a complex thing as a brain from some goo. When these things, or other things happen, just watch them, let them pass, and then bring your attention back to the breath in your nose.

It's like balancing. How do you get better at balancing? Stand precariously every day and eventually your muscles will strengthen and you will be balanced.

Similarly, bringing your attention back to the breath in your nose is how you get better at this thing.

Just some tips that helped me.

The app “Balance” is decent, and they give a year free on it (or gave, anyway). I primarily use it to go to sleep when my mind is racing (I fall asleep within 10 minutes every time, even if I’ve been laying and thinking for an hour or two), but I’ve listened to a few here and there, and I haven’t heard any mysticism.

> What mental fences do you have that you have never "considered" such an obvious course of action in the likely billion of seconds of thinking?).

Honestly I think it may just be semantics. When I think about the usage of the word "to consider," there does seem to be two different and distinct meanings. When people use it in the sense of "to consider a course of action" it actually has a different meaning than when the same word is used in other contexts.

Yes, consider defs:

- inspect an idea with tongs

- deem such idea as plausible/viable even desirable

They should be required to state which definition being used. At least you should ask.

I had to write a letter in support of my immigration application, explaining my situation and circumstances.

I gave it to my attorney and she read over it and handed it back to me. "You already have an attorney. My letter will read like an attorney wrote it. Yours should instead look like a human wrote it."

I think you're misunderstanding the difference between answering questions truthfully and how your answers are received.

I can't pretend to know what the original test writers had in mind. However, I actually think this question serves a different purpose than to determine if you had actually considered stealing from an employer. These types of questions are better suited to determine if someone can walk the corporate walk and talk the corporate talk. They don't want a low level employee to go off on a customer, or make rude remarks, or otherwise say "between you and me, fuck this company lmaoooo", because that opens them up to litigation. On that front, I would say they achieved their goal.

The _obvious_ answer to this question, if you want a job, is "no". Anyone that answers "yes" is a liability, regardless of their actual intention to steal.

Yeah, seems like if you're hiring for a low-level retail employee, it's not necessarily a plus if they're the kind of person who deeply analyzes this sort of question instead of giving the superficially correct response. Particularly if this was in an employer-friendly time from a hiring perspective, and they had an endless supply of candidates.

> they're the kind of person who deeply analyzes this sort of question

Clearly they didn't deeply analyze the question in the relevant context. Answering "yes" to this is high school level "edginess".

One needn't condescend, as there are equivalent questions at all levels of hiring, all with equally obvious (in)correct answers. No, you shouldn't answer "what is your biggest challenge" with "not showing up to work drunk", even if it is indeed your biggest challenge, and one that you work hard to successfully overcome every day.

Another commenter refers to this as "walking the corporate walk" but I think it's more "having an understanding of context and appropriate levels of sharing" and it applies at all times in life.

Some cultures, and strongly correlated thus nationalities, are more brutally honest than others. So it may just be a test to see if you're an apple pie white American, which could be unlawful discrimination.

I think you have this backwards - Apparently, Americans are considered more brutally honest and direct in negotiations than other cultures:

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-negotiate-around-the-...

That doesn't mean that Americans are more brutally honest in social interactions. In my experience, Americans commonly (admittedly, not always) avoid topics and observations which they think a listening party would find uncomfortable.

Americans do tend to be conscientious most of the time of the perspective of the other person in a conversation... basically tend to build trust before venturing into uncomfortable territory.

This actually reminds me of something I've been thinking about lately. What we call honesty is actually two different things: truthfulness and openness. Americans are probably truthful and not open.

Like Canadians are polite but not friendly

That's right.

No s**t, my g*d these Americans are really *****

(who would have thought it is so difficult to beep out words in HN, I had to escape each *)

Reminds me of the time I said the fuck word kinda loudly in public in Provo, Utah. Had people looking at me like I'd just grown a second head.

That's kinda why I always say "the fuck word" instead of "the eff word". I've had too many interactions where somebody felt comfortable correcting my word choice for me to be polite about it. ("Fuckin' heck!" is pretty fun too; people just don't know how to respond.)

I am French and we are quite liberal with our swear words. This is interesting because the ones that are used in everyday conversation, due to the intonation, are not rude. Not poetry, but not vulgarity either.

For instance the word "merde" ("shit"). When you say "ET. MERDE." clearly breaking the words apart and emphasizing them - everyone will think "something definitely bad happened" but nobody would be offended. This is only one of the zillion examples.

Now, there is a very, very fine line between being "appropriately, cleverly vulgar" and "vulgar". You do not want to be the latter.

You can say a whole daisy chain and still be fine: "oh putain de merde, quel enfoiré de Word, ma thèse sur Paul Sartre a disparu" ("fucking shitty bastard of Word, my PhD thesis about Paul Sartre has just vanished").

When I go to the US, I always forget to switch on the puritanian-s**t-filter and people look at me really sternly. I even had one older lady coming to my table where I was seated with my teenager boys when she somehow head the word "merde" (as in "et. merde." when I broke something) to tell me that the children should not hear such words.

They literally ask “How are you doing?” and expect a meaningless answer as a matter of course.

To me this sounds like an invitation to unload my worries.

It's common in most roles for employers to check if you are flexible, teachable, and ready for cool-aid.

*kool-aid

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

*Flavor Aid

They didn't actually use Kool-aid in the Jonestown massacre, people just think they did.

Just because the saying is apocryphal doesn't mean the spelling "cool-aid" was correct. The saying is "drinking the Kool-Aid" regardless

Sounds like you're drinking their cool-aid.

"drinking the Flavor Aid" doesn't sound nearly as good. It sounds like a knockoff

I personally think Flavor Aid rolls right off the tongue and into the garbage.

Reminds me of the scene in Cryptonimicon, again:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866629

Many things remind me of scenes from the Cryptonomicon, especially things that rhyme with "torpedo."

So they are filtering for a ethic that accepts boldface lying to them is necessary to cover essentials.

I can not see how this paradigm could end well.

I mean - all ethical systems favor boldfaced lying in some situations? Even Kant's Categorical Imperative simply says that, if you lie, you should do so in a situation where anyone in that situation should lie (i.e. hiding Jews from the Nazis, etc). Even within a Kantian framework, you could argue that in this context (a formal job application) it is moral to lie because no one believes your answer represents your most deeply held beliefs - but rather represents your willingness (and ability) to perform a role (the role of the Good Employee). If you can't be a Good Employee you should reveal it by not lying - but if you can be you can reveal it by lying on the form (which reflects the lying you will be expected to do in the job).

Part of the problem is that normally you're also very explicitly instructed to not lie on such forms.

> ‘Isn’t learning fun? Oh, and here’s another one.’ > DO NOT FEED THE ELEPHANT. > ‘Now that,’ said Susan, ‘is good. You can’t obey it…’ > ‘… because there’s no elephant,’ said Lobsang. ‘I think I’m getting the hang of this…’ > ‘It’s an Auditor trap,’ said Susan, peering at a packing case.

Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Part of life is learning when you'll be rewarded for following the rules v.s. breaking them. Employers will sometimes ask their employees to break the law. Will you break it for them? They want you "on their side" - meaning they want you to takes risks for them. So what you are describing as a problem with the form looks like a feature to me.

The expectation on this varies very widely across cultures, and sometimes even between classes or other social strata within a culture.

And then if someone is on the spectrum, and they already know that they have trouble reading those wink-wink-nudge-nudge clues properly, they might stick with the rules as written simply because that's something objective that they can be sure they're interpreting correctly.

For sure! I don't mean it's universal at all - I'm saying the question is setup to catch people who are nor primed with the right enculturation. It's not good! It just is a good filter that selects for the sorts of people the business wants to hire.

Many people use "considered" to actually mean "seriously considered acting upon", rather than "idly considered hypothetically" in this context.

Plus when screening many applicants with few differentiators, this might be an easy question to reject on.

Probably because you were overthinking it.

You're thinking in terms of grey while they're testing to ensure that you have at least a basic understanding of black and white.

Did you methodically weigh the pros and cons of stealing from your employer? Was there a real possibility that you would have emerged from the consideration having decided to go ahead with the theft?

If not, what you're describing sounds like "theft ideation," which I'm sure employers wouldn't be thrilled about but wouldn't warrant a question on the application.

I mean, there's a whole book that's popular dedicated to saying "yes" to every opportunity you're offered to improve your "luck"...

that's how i knew 'voice stress analysis' tests were trash. when i was a teenager, it was all the rage for companies to put candidates through these and i'd sit there lying all the way through it and still get the job every time.

now, any of my ex's can agree, i'm the worst liar in the world and if that test thought i was being honest, there's definitely something busted with it.

One book that describes these tests, and how they've come to dominate low-level jobs is titled Punching In [0]. The philosophy is that what sort of personality that would be successful at, say, Home Depot, would be completely different from American Eagle. At many retail companies, you cannot get into the payroll system unless the personality test system approves your application.

My experience with the same sort of personality tests that you've described is somewhat similar. When trying to get hired (I was desperate for anything at that time) at WalMart, the personality tests seemed to ask 3 basic questions - but about 20 different ways to approach each question - (a) do you get into fights at work? (b) do you steal? and (c) do you care if your boss steals?

0: - https://www.amazon.com/Punching-Frontlines-New-Brand-Cultu-e...

This gave me a good chuckle, and definitely speaks to the imprecision of language and how shared cultural context and understanding does a lot of heavy lifting. Context and understanding that everyone takes for granted but may not be apparent to some, even those in the culture.

Almost certainly HR and your therapist were not interested in every infinite possible though you may have ever had, but whether it was something you seriously considered or planned and may have even made intent towards actually completing.

> but I genuinely don't understand people who have "never considered" it - how do you block & limit your mind? What mental fences do you have that you have never "considered" such an obvious course of action in the likely billion of seconds of thinking?).

Having an intrusive though pop into my head ("You could totally just jump in front of the train!") is not the same as actually considering the steps towards actually planning suicide. I have had intrusive thoughts, but I would say I've never "considered" suicide.

Personality tests aren't about a test of your personality, but your ability to project the ideal personality for an employee. That has some value because it shows you'll know how you're supposed to act on the job.

When I was in the security clearance process, the first step in the process was a 500 question multiple choice psychological exam (randomized order). The test is designed to have some level of error checking to make sure participants are taking it seriously (e.g. questions that would be expected to correlate). Near the start of the exam was a question "do you have back pain", I answered "no". Near the end was the same question phrased slightly differently, I answered "yes". When in my subsequent interview to discuss the results, the interviewer questioned why I didn't answer consistently. She seemed to accept my answer of "I had been sitting in an uncomfortable chair for 2.5 hours by the time I got to the second question".

People are using a different version of 'considered' where it's not just a passing fancy, but something you would be likely to do.

A retail company that I worked for (I worked in the general office and we got a bit of a chuckle talking about the test) had a test that was very much in the same vein - though it wasn't a "have you ever considered" but rather put on a "agree to disagree" spectrum.

    It is ok to get into fights during your break as long as you aren't at the store
    It is ok to take office supplies home if they aren't valued more than $10
    It is ok to not clock out for a smoke break if it is less than five minutes long

There were other questions that were ones you were supposed to agree with too - just those weren't as memorable.

Apparently, there were people who failed the test.

The other part of the test is that it is on record. So when someone does get into a fight during their break the GM can pull the test out and say "see, you knew this."

> how do you block & limit your mind? What mental fences do you have that you have never "considered" such an obvious course of action in the likely billion of seconds of thinking?).

I don't think people block their minds. I think they just lie on forms more. I also sometimes struggle with which lies are expected.

just be very careful with how you respond to questions from a therapist. they're "legally" required to report certain things. You have to know, what you're allowed to say and what you're not, if you don't want govt institutions getting involved.

There's a difference between thinking about something and seriously entertaining it. Like you, I think about a lot of things, but I'd take "considering" to mean more than that. I've thought about all kinds of ways to commit fraud, but I'd never consider doing it. I think you've misunderstood the word in context.

I think the question is used to weed out those people who do not want the job. It is a synonym for “so you want this job?” What mental fences do you have that prevented you from interpreting the question correctly, or that encourage you to self-sabotage (assuming you needed the job; if you knew you didn’t want the job, the question provides an easy out)? Or not, I dunno you nor what the test designer intended.

> "Have you ever considered stealing from your employer?" to which I would cheerfully answer "Yes".

I absolutely do not mean this as an insult and I a honestly curious, but could you be chance be on the autism spectrum? I know I am, but not so much that I don't know that you must lie to that question. Though I did have to learn the hard way that you should not tell romantic partners that you wish your loud neighbors would die, because it would objectively improve your life. Or like when we learned about illegal slash-and-burn agriculture destroying the rain forests and hurting the global climate and I asked my teacher why the government wouldn't just shoot the farmers, to his intense horror and revulsion.

> but I genuinely don't understand people who have "never considered" it - how do you block & limit your mind?

I fully agree and think the same way, but neurotypical people generally scare away from thought experiments that make them uncomfortable because of their, as you said, mental fences.