[dahart]

I see some criticism on this point, but for me this passage is a gem.

> In general, real stories are told chronologically backwards. This is why we start off with a punchline. In contrast, practiced stories are told chronologically forwards. It’s a solid indication as the interviewer that the person is reciting something they have committed to memory if they tell the story forwards, and in turn it’s significantly more likely that the story isn’t entirely true.

I have a friend who - bless his heart, I adore him, but can't get a quick story out to save his life. Every point he makes he reserves the punchline for last, and he starts by going on a back-story tangent first which usually forks into multiple back-stories. I've been trying to nudge him to turn it around and give away the punchline first, but he's deeply convinced that good stories are like movies and need to have a backstory followed by a narrative arc that doesn't make it's final point until most of the way through act 3.

[cthalupa]

> In general, real stories are told chronologically backwards. This is why we start off with a punchline. In contrast, practiced stories are told chronologically forwards. It’s a solid indication as the interviewer that the person is reciting something they have committed to memory if they tell the story forwards, and in turn it’s significantly more likely that the story isn’t entirely true.

This is awful and just completely untrue. Many companies that take the time to want to do interviews properly will have something similar to STAR or SOARA implemented, and you'll be starting with the situation, move on to the tasks/target you wanted to complete or hit, the actions you took to achieve that, and the results of what you did. This is chronologically forwards.

This comment is the kind of psuedoscientific crap that makes interviewing a crapshoot and is a good indication of an unstructured interview.

[dahart]

Interesting opinion. I find the quote somewhat true, and the article's broader point mostly true and rather valuable.

The broader point of that quote is that a dynamic conversation usually does reveal more truth and paint a more accurate picture than a practiced story. I find that to be very true.

I feel like you might have misunderstood the article and decided it was wrong before taking the time to understand. That could be an indicator of poor writing in the article, or of excerpting and discussing a quote out of context, but is it helpful to respond with hyperbole?

STAR & SOARA do not dictate a chronology, so they are orthogonal to this point. But their goals align with the article & this quote almost entirely, if you think about it.

[cthalupa]

The quote is quite explicit - 'If you tell a story chronologically, you're more likely to be fabricating it'

I'd argue that my response isn't hyperbolic, and is justified considering how ludicrous that statement is.

How do STAR and SOARA not dictate chronology? You specifically discuss the initial situation first, and the results you achieved last (or the analysis of the results).

[dahart]

The quote didn't say "fabricating", it said "not entirely true." The way you're interpreting the quote, it would be ludicrous, I can agree. The way it was actually written, along with what I interpret to be the broader point, I think the article is somewhat true, and has a valuable message.

STAR and SOARA are a way for the interviewer to drive the requests for information, force a conversation, try to frame the question so that candidates can be more easily compared, and prevent the candidate from rambling and offering irrelevant information. The article's suggestion has the same goal, aside from the truth detection part, which I'm downplaying here.

Don't focus on a single quote and ignore the article's larger context. The author also said "If you get too far into a story without making sure they are still with you, it comes off to the interviewer that you cannot explain things well." and "If it’s not obvious yet, force the interview to be a conversation." All of the sections lead to "force conversation", if you can get past the part about speaking backwards being more truthful.

Conversations almost always run backwards, in portions. Anytime you answer a "why?" question for example, you're telling the first part last. I suspect that's what the author was trying to say, less that narratives should always be presented backwards, and more that conversations are desirable and conversations often run backward.

[inanutshellus]

Oh man, that's me for sure. I always backstory my tales to death. It does successfully take a minor conversation and turn it into an elaborate and interesting discourse but yes, as you say, it's not focused on the original punch line.

[ma2rten]

I never realized it until now, but I think I might be doing that as well. I will try to be mindful of that. Thanks.

[dahart]

There's a time and place for a good long meandering and elaborate backstory! Interesting conversation and discourse is something you should cherish and continue to develop. So, don't get me wrong, punchline first is not a rule, not always the goal. Just be aware of it, and you can start to decide which one to use. For job interviews, punchline first is good advice. For talking to your friends, it depends. For giving a talk or telling a story, backstory might be critical. Start playing with it and see how people react, find out when & how starting with the punchline is better. I think the point of the article is that punchline first is a tactic to get the other person talking and asking questions, rather than you talking for 5 minutes.

[unimpressive]

I'm pretty sure I tell my stories chronologically forwards. What a strange accusation.

(This is one of those things that's going to bug me for a while every time I tell a story.)

[alok-g]

The assertion in the OP is that forward stories are practiced beforehand and are thereby less likely to be true. I am introspective in nature, so I do have many (true) stories thought over again and again.

I would rather disagree to the idea of telling stories backwards. We aren't doing Memento things after all! :-) It's best to tell the (true) story the true way, the way it happened.

[dahart]

I'm not sure the "backwards" suggestion was meant to be taken quite so literally, my interpretation is that interrogative conversation, as opposed to narration, is the goal. Conversations, as opposed to narratives, do frequently go backwards without us even knowing about it or thinking about it, it probably happens more than you think.

"Hey I wrote this code"

"Why did you do that?"

"Because the frobnobbitz wasn't accounting for tribbles."

That's a conversation that runs backward. Anytime someone asked you 'why', and you answer, it's backwards. You don't have any control over what direction it is because the person asked you a question.

I'm really not sure but I suspect my own stories are less likely to paint an accurate picture of something than an interrogative conversation is. All humans have cognitive biases, so I wouldn't rule it out by thinking that I'm trying to tell the truth.

I've watched people practice true stories, many times, to a point that they become misleading. Not untrue, just misleading. (NB the author said "not entirely true".) Events are left out, motivations are made to look better intentioned than they were, etc. etc..

To be fair, I've seen plenty of lies made up on the spot too, so I'll refrain from defending the claim that one is more likely to be true than the other.

I still see value in placing conversation over narrative in a job interview.

[wccrawford]

Yeah, same here. Sometimes I might give away a bit of the punchline by asking if I've told them about X, before launching into the story. But generally, it's left for last, like all good stories. Otherwise, it's the definition of anti-climactic.

When giving information to someone, sure, lead with the important stuff. But when telling a tale? Pff, no.

[ensignavenger]

I can understand putting the headline first (Let me tell you about the time I re-wrote the widget code for Acme.), but I don't think I ever tell the story backwards... maybe I am just strange in that I appreciate a good (concise) story?

[dahart]

Not strange at all, there's a reason movies are they way they are. It depends on context, there are times to put the punchline first, there are times tell the story backward.

For that matter, there are classic examples of movies that tell the story backward, or give away the ending first.

There's some difference between headline first and punchline first, but either way the real point being made was turn it into a conversation by giving the shortest possible answer first, and letting the other person request the backstory as needed. Make sure they're doing some of the talking and driving the direction of the story. Make sure they're interested and controlling the direction and amount of your narrative.

OTOH, if you're in a setting where it's expected that you'll take ten or forty five minutes to tell a good story, then a narrative arc that increases tension for a while is probably a really good idea.

[ensignavenger]

That makes much more sense. I was thinking of 'telling the story backwards' being telling the same story, just giving the details in reverse of how they happened.

[kinkrtyavimoodh]

Seems like a questionable heuristic. It is not difficult to imagine that a person who is telling the story from scratch might start from the beginning and kinda meander around the details as they try to reach the end, precisely because they have NOT rehearsed the story beforehand.