[typest]

Serious question: How do you know you're good at behavioral interviews? Have you ever seen the feedback written on a behavioral interview? The companies you're describing don't usually give out feedback to applicants, so you can't know, right?

It sounds to me like you have anxiety. I'm saying this because I have anxiety, so I know what it's like. One hallmark of anxiety disorders is that you think things are true about the world, even though you don't actually have evidence this is the case. Or, you fixate on some pieces of information while ignoring evidence to the contrary, which again is irrational thinking. Or you hold assumptions about how the world works that aren't proven. You should look into cognitive behavioral therapy as a potential solution.

You say "compared to everyone else". But, you have to acknowledge that the net worth and income numbers you named put you into the 99th percentile, right? So, you actually mean "compared to a very small subset of people I have failed", right? And this is just a completely irrational argument. I mean according to this vein of thinking, then since I don't have as much money as Jeff Bezos, I've failed. And the implication then is the whole world has failed. Right?

[lowiqengineer]

I've always passed interviews that focused on behavioral aspects, I've frequently struggled in algorithm focused loops (bombed 2/4 in my Google onsite because, again, I'm intellectually inferior). Besides, until recently G didn't include any behavioral loops.

> "compared to a very small subset of people I have failed"

Compared to nearly everyone at elite universities I have absolutely failed. I'm sure some of them will become the Jeff Bezos of 2050 as well - it's irrelevant that it's still a small number. I don't want to be compared against somebody that works at Cisco or IBM for instance for the work and mental anguish I've put in.

[typest]

Even here you have many false assumptions though. For instance, the Harvard median new grad salary is 69k [1]. So you’re wrong in your assertion that compared to nearly everyone at elite universities you have failed. By your own definition of success, compared to most (by definition of median) people at elite universities, you have succeeded, and it’s they who have failed.

You also have an implicit assumption that people who work at Cisco or IBM haven’t put in work or mental anguish, and you’re wrong. I know many people who worked and studied hard to get jobs at these places.

You’re artificially restricting the set of successful outcomes so that you can say you’ve failed because you don’t fall into that arbitrary set. Not to mention that your entire definition of success as defined by things like money and perks is wrong.

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/14/sta...

[lowiqengineer]

The perspective is inverted. From the perspective of a Harvard/Stanford/CMU/MIT undergrad working at Amazon is failing, which is nothing to say of IBM or Cisco (this is what I've understood after talking to several). I'd wager that the median new grad TC for Harvard CS students is at least twice that.

[sukilot]

That's completely unscientific content marketing "research".