[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> intellectual dishonesty

This suggestion that a person who can adequately perform job duties could have even possibly cheated in their job interview is intellectually dishonest. If they had to cheat to get the job we should be looking at the interviewer. Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat? Why is whatever-they-did even considered cheating?

[JohnFen]

> Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat?

If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat. If they're not, then they did. Either way, they're dishonest and that means they're not a desirable hire.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat.

(Just rewriting to specify my understanding: If the candidate was qualified, they didn't have to cheat even if they did cheat. They could have simply not cheated and been selected by the merits of their qualifications.)

This argument relies on the false premise that an interviewer will always accurately determine a candidate's qualifications. That a candidate is not qualified to pass an interview is not the same that a candidate is not qualified for the job for which they're being interviewed.

[JohnFen]

True, most interviewing processes are very imperfect by necessity and some qualified people will be mistakenly filtered out.

But also, there are usually several-to-many applicants for a position that are all qualified, and by necessity most of them won't get the position.

Additionally, technical qualifications is only a part of what an employer is looking for. There are other things that are at least equally important -- how well the applicant would fit into the team, how trustworthy they are, etc. It's about a lot more than just technical skillset.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> True, most interviewing processes are very imperfect by necessity and some qualified people will be mistakenly filtered out.

This is ultimately something I see as dishonest given the context of job applications. Employers generally expect a certain kind of perfection from job candidates, which they can’t manage to show of themselves. I understand that this isn’t an easy thing to solve -- nor even something that’s ever been solved -- but that should at least make it more understandable when an otherwise qualified candidate uses disallowed tools in their interview.

Perhaps the candidate’s real best option is to find a different company to work for but they may not be so privileged as to have a choice if their on-paper qualifications are lacking. Assuming their practicable qualifications are adequate, they may have good reason to bullshit through a bad interview. Additionally, finding a different company is pretty likely to be “same shit, different day”.

> But also, there are usually several-to-many applicants for a position that are all qualified, and by necessity most of them won't get the position.

Assuming they’ve qualified via an interview and there are particularly close candidates, pick the one who applied first. They’re admittedly qualified and further interviewing is just a means of discriminating in error-prone and possibly unlawful or immoral ways.

> Additionally, technical qualifications is only a part of what an employer is looking for. There are other things that are at least equally important -- how well the applicant would fit into the team, how trustworthy they are, etc. It's about a lot more than just technical skillset.

Fair enough. I would caution interviewers against judging too harshly or quickly. One can imagine many reasons an interviewee might choose or seem to lie during an interview while they are otherwise an honest person, ranging from stress to disillusionment to [cultural differences](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39209794).

At the end of the day, filtering for liars and cheaters actually filters for bad liars and cheaters in addition to people who are a bit nervous or tired or stressed or cynical or just having a slightly off day; dishonest people who genuinely see nothing wrong with dishonesty get through just fine.