Absolute Thinking

By Roy D. Follendore III

There is no absolute correct way to think. For that reason, it is amazing to consider all of the thoughts that occur when two people are interacting. A basic concept of human interpersonal communication is that when we talk we are not only attempting to say the things we need to, we are also doing our best to say them in the context of the others view. "I can hear what you are saying but I think I understand what you mean" is more than just a phrase, it is a reflection of how we are presenting ourselves to others. Between two people there is an infinite reflection taking place. Throw in an abstract idea into a dialogue and the reflection is permuted. The meaning of words become secondary to abstractions. To useful make sense of what is going on requires a translation from the the abstract to an absolute. The problem is that two people can wind up with two very different translations and they both fail. Sometimes it seems I am not sure if intelligence does not get in the way of direct communication. This essay is about the importance of absolute thinking within interpersonal communication, though I am not entirely sure what I mean by this term yet. I am still thinking about that. In the meantime, I thought that this interview would make an interesting essay.

December 11, 2002

I went to a job interview yesterday for which I was unprepared. This was not my first interview with this organization, it was my fourth or fifth and my second one onsite. It seemed like a great position that fit me perfectly. This meeting was at nine in the morning and of course I had to get up and leave two hours early. On top of that I got up at four thirty because I woke, exactly like I was in the Army, though I haven't been in the Army in many years. Some habits die hard. I arrived at the right building a half hour early so I parked in front of the landscaped lake. Ice covered the surface except for the places where several fountains sprayed a fog to decoratively aerate. A lone green headed duck sat fluffed up, trying to keep warm and seemingly frozen to the icy waters edge.

This interview was with a company that does technical analysis. I am very good at that, perhaps because I like to think and also because I am admittedly a conceptually detailed thinker which some might say is anal retentive. But I enjoy thinking out causes and solutions to problems and I carry my working thoughts with me as I do other things. I can feel my ideas working deep down in my mind. I had to long ago recognize that I am a subconscious thinker. My emergent ideas are often surprising to myself and others and they can occasionally be revolutionary. Being intuitive does not mean a person is a psychic but it apparently sometimes seems that way to others. Just because I understand a solution does not mean that I always immediately understand the implications or reasons for the solution. I spend a great deal of my personal time thinking out the philosophical reasons and implications of conclusions that emerge. What I have learned to do is trust the emergence of concepts. I have also leaned to be humble in my own way. I realized that my way of thinking, while being far more thorough, is also slower to explain.

I pulled my car to the general parking area around back and went up to the top floor for my interview. I signed in and was given the customary morning cup of coffee. Just as I got the cup in my hand, a fellow came smartly around the corner and introduced himself. I switched the hot coffee cup to shake his hand.

This person who was to interview me on this day was the Chief Technology Officer. He seemed like a very nice person in his own way. At the beginning he put me at ease. He offered me a mint, which I accepted. My first impression was that he seemed highly intelligent and perhaps just a little arrogant. I have come to expect a certain degree of arrogance from most people who are in positions where they must think of themselves as intelligent. I have found that is not necessarily a bad thing. A certain amount of arrogance is also useful because it reduces wasted time and therefore keeps you in control. Busy people who are smart are also vulnerable in ways that others are not. Arrogance is becomes a kind of protective mechanism that works fine if it is not overwhelming and not too rude. I am sure that others take me for being arrogant at times, though I personally try not to allow it to affect my attention for the needs of others. It is important to just get to know people.

I am from the South and I guess the culture there dictates that a certain amount of time should be given to personal courtesies. "How was your drive in?" "Did you happen to see that Skins game this weekend?" "How do you feel about world peace?" "Where did you get that briefcase?" "Did you have a big holiday?" Almost any conversation is useful to break the ice. The idea is to make the person being interviewed comfortable so that it is not so much like an interrogation. The most intelligent fellows in the South are often mistaken as some Andy of Mayberry country character. We seem to "waste everyone's time" and let the point arrive when it is ready. To our defense, some of the smartest people I have ever met were southerners much like that.

Anyway, when you think about it, there are really three objectives in an interview. The first is to know what the fellow being interviewed is really like. The second is to get to know what the fellow knows and believes. The third is to understand how the fellow thinks under pressure. The first requires the person to be relaxed. The second requires cooperative interactive dialogue. The third best requires the introduction of a "strawman" problem.

Let's just say that in this particular case, this particular interviewer was definitely from north of the Mason Dixon line and this particular interview began just a little too abruptly for a 9AM ice cold meeting. The very first question I was asked was similar to one that I might have asked as a climax to an interview. I guess that is what immediately threw me off. I felt like that frozen duck I had been watching.

The actual question I was asked is not germane to this essay, but the structure of the question goes something like this. Compare X to Y and explain what you think the similarities and differences. This is a good question to ask as the strawman problem because it can be difficult. If X and Y are different enough, then the question is simple and obvious enough. But if X and Y are tightly integrated ideas, then the question becomes quite complex, particularly to someone who thinks intensely about such things the way that I do. My interviewer of course began the interview by asking me the kind of X and Y question that was in my mind very closely associated. His mind could be firmly fixed on X or Y, or even X & Y as the solution he was expecting.

I hesitated. One thousand one... One thousand two... I of course knew the answer but I was confused about his motive. Didn't this intelligent fellow know the difference? One thousand three... Surely he knows that X and Y are integrated ideas. This was a test! Of course it is. One thousand four... He is challenging me. He wants me to say what I think. On the other hand maybe he is mapping my opinions with those he has set for the company? One thousand something...

My mouth stumbled as I explained that the question seemed ambiguous because X and Y is so closely related. It was like trying to discuss the concept of a human being without a brain, a brain without a nervous system, blood without a heart, the universe without matter or matter without energy. A million years passed as I became aware that I had been holding my breath.

My interviewer spoke and interrupted my thinking. I sighed as I nodded my head. I had missed something he said and I was not entirely sure what I had said. He gave his opinion. The fountain that sprayed water onto the ice covered lake was framed by the window behind his head and I noticed that it was beginning to accumulate a few ducks and seagulls who were flying in. I heard him say, "...this is what I think about the relationship between X and Y. X and Y are conceptually completely separate things, what do you think?"

Once again I hesitated. I now felt dumb and confused. My mouth now felt dry. The juice of the coffee beans pounded through my arteries. My intuition clicked once more and told me this is intellectual bait. This is subterfuge I thought. Surely he does not believe that X and Y are not integrated ideas? This person is intelligent right? Is he attempting to impress me with his technical prowess? Surely he understands that the close relationship of X and Y is what causes the problems that frustrate his clients? I knew that I had been backed into a corner. I felt weaponless. I unconsciously grabbed my lip and adjusted my glasses. I felt powerless. Rationality was the option I wanted to use as a last resort because it sounds like arrogant preaching. I decided to go back to basics. Was he asking me to tell him what I know to be true? Was that the test? After all, I was being hired to be an "senior expert." If I told him what I knew to be true, then I would be conflicting with his opinion and lose my opportunity for this job through the fault of my own egotism. Somewhere in the back of my brain I suddenly realized that I had forgotten to breathe so I gasped a little air. Hopefully he didn't notice. But if I did not answer truthfully by trying to be so damned diplomatic, then I would not be demonstrating my capabilities. What then?

If the right answer was the most truthful answer then it would be one that he should respect. If not, then I quite possibly be thereafter required to intellectually kiss his ass for the duration of my employment. I knew at that moment that if this is a test then I had a 50 50 probability of failure. I could be wrong either way and if I was wrong then I knew I would fail the interview.

My choice was instantaneous.

I apologetically blurted the reasons for my disagreement and then immediately regretted every word.

Who in hell was I to disagree? This person could be my future boss. I was in his office with a great view. I do not have an office with a great view like this. This individual was willing to consider paying me good money. He was one of the founders of the company. The company is still in business and making money. He must be smarter than me. I owe him. I remembered that he gave me a mint.

I felt myself frightened by my decision, my actions and my thoughts so deep down that I felt totally devastated and humiliated. I then tried to keep the communication between us open and my facial expressions "normal." I tried to explain that my research over the past decade had demonstrated that my view was indeed possible. I paraphrased my philosophy, "I have found that X and Y are not differentiable concepts though they can be managed separately. If you would just think of the methodology that manages them a little differently. In fact, the solutions for Y can be used for X."

"That is impossible!" he said as I heard the door to his mind slam shut. After that we chattered on like two chipmunks but we did not seem communicate as well as that. He asked me about work that I had done more than a decade ago. He asked me the names of people that I had known and worked with but had not thought about in years. I found that my long term memory had been severed. I was disconnected by all of the background processing and my interactional reflexes were apparently no longer working. I expected a busy signal and got one. I expected him to look at his watch when he did.

He asked me if I had any questions to ask him. I said I only had two. I asked him if he believed in the existence of lies. He confirmed that he did. I explained to him that the expectation of truth was important to me because I had worked in a company once where that important expectation did not exist. I then asked him if he does the best for those who work for him. He confirmed that he does. I guess this was my way of indirectly communicating that my answers to his questions were to be taken as an honest act of respect. My assumption was that if he was intelligent enough to phrase tough questions then he might understand the implication, even though I don't think he understood or even agreed with my blubbering verbal answers. By that time I figured that if I had misjudged him, it really did not make much of a difference if I put my complete foot in my mouth or just the tips of my toes.

He thanked me for the interview and escorted me to be introduced the Human Resources Director. She was bright, young, attractive and pleasant. She was everything I might have expected. She also seemed used to handling men who like to think and think for a living. She said that I might like the academic environment. She offered the usual brochures on the company, which I had already read on their website. She also then told me that all of the people who I had interviewed with would be getting together to make a decision about hiring me. She said I would be hearing from them soon. She gave me her hand to shake and I signed out. The large rectangular plasma screen in the reception area was still throwing out colorful stock prices while some CNN business woman in the corner mouthed words that were rolling across in words.

My head felt like it was made of cotton balls.

On the way home I decided to take the road through the country. I wanted time to think about what went on. I decided that I should not expect the position. I have thought about this enough.

It is two days later... A few moments ago I got an email while I was talking to a fellow Professor at the University where I teach about research issues that are related to the problem I was asked during the interview.

Of course the message said that I didn't get the position.

But from my professional experience and research I knew I was correct, but in this case I had been politically incorrect. In spite of the fact that I have no idea how exactly much that last interview affected their final decision, I guess the moral of all of this simply adds up to the fact that the business of Science and Engineering does not exist in a vacuum. Intelligent people in positions of authority are not necessarily interested in the correct answer. I suppose they want the most correct answer, relative to their circumstance. I think I will bring this concept up in my next graduate class where I teach.

In the final analysis I expect that I would have enjoyed the position and I would have been good for them. I know that I could have really helped that company open up to new ideas and philosophies that could put them in a better position with their clients. For them it would have been like a breath of fresh air. I lost that opportunity but I also know that I am not entirely unhappy with their decision.

The job would have been tough. I know from my interviews that their business is at that critical point of trying to change so that they can adapt to new business strategies. With the kind of overhead they must be carrying I wish them the best of luck. The trappings of the casual dot com academic atmosphere can hide a rigid bastion of absolute thinking about the nature of the very technical problems they are attempting to solve. There must be many similar companies out there.

"Beware of the absolute thinkers for it is their kind who designed the Titanic." RDFollendoreIII 2002

.