To demonstrate their honesty. ;)
OP put unacceptable but the answer was 25%
They never asked me to interview and I wonder if my "wrong" answers to the ambiguous questions disqualified me.
The manager sounds like they'd be happy to steal your wages, as long as it was "only a small amount". You dodged a bullet there.
I also think that going from that question to them stealing your wages can only be fairly analogized if it's a similarly insignificant amount. Is it wage theft if they underpay me by $0.02? Yes. Does it really matter? Not to me.
Personally, for me the amount is irrelevant; action and intent is what matters, so in some contexts $0.02 would absolutely matter to me.
The premise of the manager's hypothetical question was to determine whether someone is dishonest, which is flawed.
Rigid, extreme fundamentalists with over-simplified principles are not good employees.
>Is it wage theft if they underpay me by $0.02? Yes. Does it really matter? Not to me.
well: being pedantic, 2 cents an hour done constantly adds up to $40 a year. If we're talking minimum wage, every dollar counts.
That's part of the issue, a lot of wage theft happens to those who need it the most. But they also tend to be the most exploitable.
A well-developed code of personal ethics might not matter in the context of burger-flipping, but jobs requiring a high IQ usually also require someone to have principles.
How would a high IQ candidate answer this question?
Such a great movie.
With the questions all being like that with different wording, "I find myself getting frustrated in high stress situations.", "I enjoy high stress situations because they are exciting.", "Being around a lot of people all the time can be annoying", etc.
Over and over and over again for about fifteen minutes.
A lot of the time, it’s an unfamiliarity with “test taking as being a test of determining theory of mind of the test-giver”.
Rather than answering however they think the test-giver would want the answers to look like, they approach the test with alternative less useful approaches, ones like “holistic reframed hypotheticals” where they’re thinking of the situation in a modified hypothetical with a real world context introduced and with information that might dramatically change one’s answer, such as
“assume you’ve learned a coworker has taken some money out of the cash-drawer, how much money would be your threshold to snitch on them to management versus E.G. just asking them to put the money back?”, for which many people’s answer will not be “even one dollar”.
It is a trained skill to know this is a flawed approach and that broadly, “most tests don’t want you to make outside assumptions or reframe situations, and you should default to using strict and as-literal-as-possible interpretations of questions”.
He said something along the lines of "I know some employees are going to try to steal from the register, but why would they admit that in an interview?