when a job application asks questions like "are you a loner" or "do you like working with others", should i lie?
>>24674411
That depends on the job.
obviously but what companies would ask that
>>24674411
What kind of job application asks that?
>>24674411
You should never lie.
>>24674411
You should always lie.
>>24674489
I've seen questions like that in those online applications. Bestbuy was one of them.
>>24674500
This guy is clearly not in a successful job.
You always lie. Everyone else is lying to make themselves seem like the perfect candidate, so you have to as well. Just don't lie about things they can figure out from google or your references.
Even if they find out you lie, what happens? You think they're going to put you on some imaginary blacklist that all important companies in the country share? No, they're just going to reject you. So don't get caught.
>>24674411
Yes.
They won't fire you once you get the job as long as you do your tasks/projects competently.
But you won't get the job if you answer these things truthfully.
>>24674411
being successful as a normie is built around lying
>>24674411
No application will ask you those questions
>>24674411
We'd like you to be more of a team player, anon. You didn't participate in the company volleyball tournament and I didn't see you at John's birthday party at the sports pub. Do you not like working here? Look at JaMarcus - he's always wearing a clean, pressed shirt and a smart tie. He's the kind of team player we want you to be.
>>24674669
Not directly like that maybe, but there are questions where the basic premise is finding out whether your a social person or if you are a team player.
Long post short, always lie and answer like you're the most social Chad out there.
>>24674411
Yes. When I was applying for summer jobs I made the mistake of filling it out believably. They actually just want to make sure you know the correct lies to tell.
>>24674411
Yes u should lie mate
>>24674561
This is not relevant.
What I'm talking about is that the word 'lie' must never go together with the word 'should'.
OP could have asked, for instance, 'is it conductive for me to lie'. This could have been true or false, depending on the factors you gave.
But 'should' and 'lie' is an inherent no-no.
>>24674838
Should is not a meaningful concept. It is just a confusion caused by people conflating personal preference with cause and effect.
>>24674838
OH IN THE METAPHYSICAL SENSE WHY YES GOOD SIR LYING IS IMMORAL AND WRONG AND THOU SHALT NEVER DO SO.
>>24674943
I think I used to believe that as well. That 'should' doesn't exist because preferences are subjective. But then I realized that truth, and happiness, and one or two other qualities I have no names for yet, are intrinsic after all. So 'should' both doesn't exist, in the sense that we can only speak of facts and not 'we should spend more on this-or-that', and does, in that lying to and harming, even a murderer, is wrong regardless of the greater goods.
>>24675010
>is wrong
Not in a sense which is meaningful.
>>24675085
I wouldn't argue that just yet. I get moral, or rather, valuative relativism perfectly; that one cannot, for instance, say 'we should condemn this guy', but instead we should just talk about the consequences of treating him one way or another, all that. But I think that language is too fundamental a phenomenon for truth not to be a value in itself, parallel to the individual 'shoulds' and 'shouldn'ts'.
>>24675142
Truth is meaningful but I don't see how that implies 'should' is.
>>24675204
There are, as pedestrian as that will sound, two kinds of 'should'. One is 'decisive should', which basically means 'I wanna'. For instance, 'I want you to tell the truth', or 'I want for that crime to be punishable by death', or 'I want my country to liberate that country'. But another is, again, the objective should, e.g. the should that is violated whenever someone says something that doesn't correspond to reality, that there's no proverbial object in the proverbial box. But granted, this is just an opinion of mine yet.
>>24675293
The latter isn't related to the former at all though, or the usage earlier in the thread. At most you're just saying 'should' is a homonym.
>>24675418
True. That people use a certain definition of a word, such as 'should', is a physical, material outcome, and therefore my request that people don't pair 'should' with 'lie' was subjective, just my opinion. Though then, I do think that enforcing that people shouldn't link 'should' and 'lie' would result in less lying itself.
inb4 this guy tries to steer this thread into buddhism again like the autist that he is
