[chubbyFIREthrwy]

Good points, I appreciate the perspective! But, as someone probably on the spectrum, I still feel like the point about "NT people can't talk about facts" holds up.

Like, if someone replies, "I need the money etc" why can't NTs better clarify what they mean? For example, "Okay but why this company/role/specialty" as opposed to <alternative>?" If someone lacks the self-awareness to narrow down what they're looking for in a case like that, and just writes off the interviewee as deficient somehow, I'm happy to label the interviewer as being bad at "talking about facts".

I've had a case where I got a similar kind of prompt, and I asked a clarifying question to better get at what he was looking for, and he replied, "Just, whatever you interpret that to mean."

Like, what? You're the one asking the question, and you don't know what you want out of it? You'll knowingly let the interviewee "interpret" it, in a possibly incorrect way?

There was a reddit thread I'll try to find where they were asked "What's your favorite drink" and they replied "water" to which the follow-up was "come on, you can do better than that". A lot of commenters said, "oh yeah obviously that was an attempt to get you to see if you can intelligently defend your preference" or whatever. Okay, but the interviewer can also clarify what they're looking for!

Is it really (always) a bona fide occupational qualification to be able to guess the wishes of someone who's making no effort to express them on their own end?

[Thiez]

It's not rocket science. What is the purpose of the interview? For the company, to find out if you are a good fit for them. The questions must be interpreted in that context.

That you need money is not interesting information to them, that will be true for (almost?) all other applicants too. So when they ask: 'why do you want this job?' they mean 'why do you want THIS job?' so they actually do literally say word-for-word what they mean. So you answer with stuff like why you might like the job, or why it is a good career step for you, or why your skills make you a good fit.

[chubbyFIREthrwy]

That's not responding to the point in my comment, which was about whether NTs are actually deft in communication about facts, as claimed.

If what you describe were the only issue, it would, at most, be a minor hiccup while the interviewer clarifies what they actually want in the answer -- i.e. are they validating that you have reasonable expectations about what you can get out of the job? Or that you have relevant qualifications? Both?[1]

If they're utterly stymied or write off the applicant on the basis of that answer, then yeah, that would validate the point that they're bad at "talking about facts!" Ditto for the other two examples, like where they interviewer refuses a chance to clarify, and leaves it open to guessing the secret desideratum.

Also, FWIW, it's kind of generous of you to discount the possibility that they're looking for indicators that you're desperate for work that they can't ask for directly.

[1] Note that another reply gives a different "obvious" interpretation, the confrontational "Why should we care?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42990107

[fvvybfbfbyg]

To be fair being able to understand which facts matter in which situation and which are irrelevant can be a very important aspect of some jobs.

I mean before replying “I need the money" etc. one should consider if that’s not obvious and why would the interviewer care about the information. It’s not particularly subjective.

> who's making no effort

Having to always be very literal and explicit is not very efficient though. That person might prefer spending their time doing something else.

[chubbyFIREthrwy]

You're missing the same point as in the other reply. The issue is not whether you can conceivably derive some other reasonable interpretation of the question. The issue is whether a NT interviewer is deft enough at communication so as to make this just a minor hiccup. If they're so flabbergasted by that kind of reply, and just shut down that that point, then yeah, I'm sorry, they just suck at asking for what they want, or are trying to weasel out of owning the real question.

(Edit: Or, even better, why not, like migrate to a question that heads off the misinterpretation in the first place e.g. "Why do you feel this role is a good match for you?" I think you know why.)

Remember, everyday communication constantly has (far-more-obvious) misinterpretations that, in hindsight, with sufficient logical strength, one party could have avoided entirely. Those who are actually good at communication, at "talking about facts", can easily identify the mismatch and narrow down what they want. This remains true regardless of how obvious a thing one party missed.

So yes, I get it, you can derive a better interpretation. That's beside the (original) point about, why can't you ask for what you really want? Why would you say something like, "[uhhh, oh crap, I have no self-awareness...] Just, whatever you interpret the question to mean"?

And, as with the other commenter, it's kind of funny that you're discounting the possibility that an NT would ever be in a position where they can't/don't want to ask the question they really want to, and are in a position of power to expect the interviewee to volunteer it. ("Yes I'm desperate enough to really need the money and make up some story about how I really like your company/line of work to cover it.")