> in a job interview, the hiring manager will say
> something vague like "bad cultural fit" when he really
> means "This candidate knows more than me. If I hire him,
> then my own job might be at risk."
Rationalising people's poor reactions to you as their being scared of your superior intellect is going to stop you from dealing with the underlying issues you're having with social interaction.On the other hand, some people complain about arbitrary treatment in school, too. I can't think of any egregious experiences like that for myself. Maybe these complainers are the type who make excuses for their own failings? Maybe school vs. adult work isn't a good contrast after all? Anyway, I found it a better analogy than you're giving it credit for.
Also, I think your tone is a bit strong. Maybe you didn't mean to, but it sounds like you're accusing this person of having "underlying issues with social interaction" and that they often feel they're mistreated by others and are superior to them. That seems uncalled for, given that the original text wasn't that direct or personal. It was just an example. If you feel that it implies a certain attitude of the author that you feel needs correcting, there might be more helpful ways to say it.
I'm not sure if you're being serious here but is it really hard to believe that you might not be a good fit for a company?
For example, if a company told me they like working weekends and 10 hours a day, and I said I value working smart and think that working too many hours leads to poor quality code, I'm pretty sure both of us would think it's a poor fit.
The same works for employers, employees, and co-owners: they want people with whom they can connect enough so that they can work with them. If you do connect with a person, you end up hanging out with him/her, and this opens the door for creativity and new ideas and projects.
Conversely, nobody wants to spend time with people they don't particularly like or connect with, even if they are highly skilled. Interviews are always very personal in the end, even if people want to back up their choices with seemingly rational and objective analysis. That's why there's an array of diplomatic answers to why the candidate was rejected. But basically it often comes down to "I didn't get a good feeling of him", and that hunch is likely to be correct in most cases (I'd personally venture to say "in all cases") but you're not allowed to say it aloud.
In life you don't win by getting the numbers right: you win by letting go of too much idealism, seeing instead what works 1) for real and 2) for you, and then by hopping on to the right carriages while journeying on.
I think existentially I would feel a lot better if I got nixed because I was too smart, rather than, for example, not being lucky enough to be culturalized in an upper middle class setting.
It's not quite a lie. It most certainly is code for you having applied to the wrong position.
There are plenty of places where the hiring managers will know more than you, or if they don't, understand that specialization is probably going to turn out OK, and that you're not a threat but a possible asset.
I think school gives the illusion of direction. Tying your mental well-being too tightly to your performance is precarious. In a way, all guarantees are lies that the lessons of living eventually correct.
In a job, if your boss just doesn't like you for whatever reason, there's no clear feedback for why you're failing, at least not in the same form you get feedback in school.
For example, on a job interview, the hiring manager will say something vague like "bad cultural fit" when he really means "This candidate knows more than me. If I hire him, then my own job might be at risk."
I always thought "Work hard, study hard, do your best job and things will always work out for you." It's a bit of a shock to realize that's a lie.