a theme in the replies was that this sort of job listing is effectively a lie, and hence unethical & that to defend this practice is also wrong
I find this a rather interesting way of thinking about institutions & business relationships; rather binary and out of touch w/ reality
---
RT @pee_zombie
seemingly-arbitrary gatekeeping exists for a reason
consider software job listings; anyone in the industry knows they're 90% bs & doesn't p…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1411010447910871040
it presupposes every institution has perfect self knowledge & competence in communicating its desires; no individual human has this, so how likely is it for a larger, less tightly integrated system to? bit unrealistic, no?
what use is an ideal which leaves no room for mistakes?
rather than accuse others of lacking in integrity, it may be useful to consider in which ones definition thereof may be rather arbitrary and non-universal. the world is not so simple as to be cleanly split into lying & truth-telling
expecting perfection from others and refusing to engage on any other terms can be a great way to excuse one's own discomfort with ambiguity
if you wish to interface with the real world, improving this capacity would be instrumental, as there's such thing as an ideal in reality
furthermore, it's quite telling that many see "applying for jobs where you don't quite meet the stated requirements" as arrogant, exaggerating ones qualifications, etc. this perspective seems to assume a sort of strict power relationship and formal protocol, with ironclad rules
the world, for better or worse, has no such rules, no matter how much you'd love for it to; all is but ambiguous shades of gray and no one knows what they want. as such, mostly every business relationship is an iterated negotiation. why expect to get it just right the first time?
there's a reason hiring is a multi stage process, as every layer of filters is imperfect, in both directions. false positives and negatives abound! the game is a probabilistic one, albeit skewed toward false negatives, as the cost of firing is huge. there's no righteousness here.
the desire to see the world as rule-governed, and hence controllable through rule-following, is understandable; chaos is terrifying! but trying your hardest to be the best little cog you can will not save you from ruin; the thing about cogs is that they still need to be directed
cogs are, fundamentally, interchangeable. there's no cog so incredible that it cannot be replaced with another; the true scarcity is in drivers, those with agency, who can stare into the depths of chaos and choose a direction to go in. the cogs are naught but the mechanism.
if you truly want to be a cog, good on you; but you won't get very far by bemoaning the chaotic nature of reality, and hence that of its components. you can only externalize so much entropy, and there are diminishing returns. get comfortable w/ ambiguity or you'll be replaced.
such a yardstick can never be lived up to, setting the stage for constant disappointment; one can argue it has utility as an asymptote to aim for, but is this really better than setting realistic expectations? the platonic realm has much beauty to offer but it seldom matches ours