How Would You Describe Yourself in Three Words?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack21222
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
57 replies · 43K views
Physics news on Phys.org
jhae2.718 said:
I'm the type of person who would say "An inkblot test as designed by Rorschach" for every one...

Not bad. The interview version of that is "I am here."
 
qspeechc said:
"No I can't."

I think that speaks for itself. But really, these questions are very silly. These sound like questions you would find on those cheesy dating shows. I think you are better off not working for a company that asks such stupid questions.

Very wrong. Presumably, they're a profit making organisation. Not a benevolent society. They are entitled to ask you that and a whole lot more.

The three killer responses for me, used to be;

- Tenacious
- Punctual
- Lateral thinker

Anyone who could say those things and mean them, was WAY ahead in my books.
 
Imaginative
Easilly bored.
Tenacious.

Meh four words, never been to concerned with linguistics. If there is word for easily bored it is not one I know so I'll make one up: ennuism.

I can't sum myself up in three words either, I just can't. I don't think anyone could because the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. Unless of course you are in a permanent vegetative state or dead or somit. In both cases your parts are probably going to end up being exactly the sum of your parts by the laws of physics.
 
Calrid said:
Imaginative
Easilly bored.
Tenacious.

Meh four words, never been to concerned with linguistics. If there is word for easily bored it is not one I know so I'll make one up: ennuism.

I can't sum myself up in three words either, I just can't. I don't think anyone could because the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. Unless of course you are in a permanent vegetative state or dead or somit. In both cases your parts are probably going to end up being exactly the sum of your parts by the laws of physics.

They don't want to philosophise with you - they want to determine whether you'd be a good financial asset / risk to their organisation.
 
alt said:
They don't want to philosophise with you - they want to determine whether you'd be a good financial asset / risk to their organisation.

God no?!

I got fired from a Financial Assistant job for being honest.

Perhaps I should of mentioned integrity? :smile:

The only thing I would be an asset to is an organisation that encourages you to think, not do without thinking. More fool me. I'd be still working now if that was the case. Meh life's like that.

Massive risk to any financial organisation. Finance is a mirky business at the best of times. Overall organisation: kinda depends if it isn't trying too hard and quantity matters over quality and quantity therefore? :biggrin:

It is a question where there is no wrong answer, as the OP shows it's more important how you answer the question than what it is. These are interview questions I like as they tend to analyse creativity if of course you are not prepared for them.

Like

"What would you do if two customers were asking for help and the phone rang?"

No wrong answer here, except maybe gun down the two customers and then pick up the phone and loudly proclaim "I am dead inside!"

Careful about being too honest at interview though, or in some cases after. :smile:

Good bit of advice if someone asks you an unexpected question. Ask if they mean in the work environment or generally. Give yourself thinking time. And don't panic!
 
Last edited:
AlephZero said:
Intolerant of arbitrary and pointless restrictions.

Think about it ...

In the work place or generally?

:-p

You wouldn't get the job, but you'd score marks in unexpected answers. :smile:
 
alt said:
Very wrong. Presumably, they're a profit making organisation. Not a benevolent society. They are entitled to ask you that and a whole lot more.

The three killer responses for me, used to be;

- Tenacious
- Punctual
- Lateral thinker

Anyone who could say those things and mean them, was WAY ahead in my books.

Well, it was for a 10 week internship with NASA, so their goal isn't profit in the normal sense.

The two I came up with were:

Motivated - I explained what I had sacrificed to get to where I am, and how I'm not just applying for "something to do this summer," I'm applying because this might be something I want to do for the rest of my life.

Curious - I'm never content to not know the answer to something, I always have to look it up. And even then, I'm often not content to learn it on a superficial level, I want to understand things more deeply

Then, my mind went blank. There were no more adjectives in the English language. Then my mind went to how awkward I must sound, and it was a downward spiral for now. I apologized and said I couldn't think of another word at the moment.

After the interview, I realized I should have said "analytical," because I'm always dissecting things in my mind, but I suppose that would have sounded ironic after such a long pause.
 
You kinda failed the test then, your answer wasn't so much important but how you answered it was.

Specifying 3 words is not that hard, justifying them is. Hence the question: you knew you would have to make them justifiable even if they never asked you to. They do that on purpose, any decent interview has a question that you couldn't possibly of prepared for. What they are looking for is how you think on your feet.

Ask yourself if you can't then how will you handle the job when it demands that?

You could of said:

Clown shoes are comfortable
An appreciation for Jazz
and the square route of -1 = i

and it would of been a better answer. Well not really but you get the point. Hell if you could justify those three you would of been hired on the spot. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Calrid said:
You kinda failed the test then, your answer wasn't so much important but how you answered it was.

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my OP.

What they are looking for is how you think on your feet.

Ask yourself if you can't then how will you handle the job when it demands that?

The job won't require thinking on my feet. I can't imagine any split-second decisions occurring when analyzing year-old satellite data. Even if there were, I'd be better at split-second math decisions as opposed to split-second introspection. I don't see how the two compare.
 
I can as simple as these for my whole life. And, live the way that I am.
Physics, Math, & English.
(my knowledge, my thought, & my words.)
 
AlephZero said:
Intolerant of arbitrary and pointless restrictions.

Think about it ...

Thanks! :frown:
I was going to write
"Thinking about it."

But came back to the thread with
Never on time.
 
Jack21222 said:
Yes, that's exactly what I said in my OP.



The job won't require thinking on my feet. I can't imagine any split-second decisions occurring when analyzing year-old satellite data. Even if there were, I'd be better at split-second math decisions as opposed to split-second introspection. I don't see how the two compare.

I don't think I've ever done a job that didn't involve thinking on your feet at some point, and my first job was as a pot washer in a busy restaurant.
 
Calrid said:
I don't think I've ever done a job that didn't involve thinking on your feet at some point, and my first job was as a pot washer in a busy restaurant.

Well yes, I can imagine needing to think on your feet at that job. It's a busy restaurant.
 
Jack21222 said:
Well yes, I can imagine needing to think on your feet at that job. It's a busy restaurant.

But you can't imagine any situation where you might in that job. Probably another reason why you didn't get the job. Your boss calls late at night and says he needs you into reach a dead line, x need the data before y and he needs you to pull an overtime shift with him. What do you say? Unless you are working as a brain in a vat, I can't imagine any job that wouldn't require imagination, perhaps with the exception of being a business lawyer or accountant. :-p
 
Calrid said:
But you can't imagine any situation where you might in that job. Probably another reason why you didn't get the job. Your boss calls late at night and says he needs you into reach a dead line, x need the data before y and he needs you to pull an overtime shift with him. What do you say? Unless you are working as a brain in a vat, I can't imagine any job that wouldn't require imagination, perhaps with the exception of being a business lawyer or accountant. :-p

First, decisions haven't been made about the job yet, we don't know for sure I didn't get it.

Second, I won't have a "boss," I'll have an "advisor."

Third, I'd say no, and for him or her to never call me late at night again.
 
Jack21222 said:
First, decisions haven't been made about the job yet, we don't know for sure I didn't get it.

Second, I won't have a "boss," I'll have an "advisor."

Third, I'd say no, and for him or her to never call me late at night again.

And that required no imagination. First of all you had to reason why you wouldn't do over time, then you had to make a decision. That question is no different from the random crap they throw at you in interviews. Although usually it would be asked as how do you feel about overtime? Evening shifts etc. How would you have responded to the question if it came From your potential employer? I mean the first question I asked?

I think the point is do they want to employ a robot or a person who can think. If they wanted a robot surely they could just build one this is NASA. You seem to be making out this is a job a trained chimp could do. NASA are good at that stuff too, or were. :smile:

Advisor/Boss whatever everyone has someone who has authority over them with the exception of the company owners or the government.

Ok well I'm no longer saying anything about your chances of getting the job I'm just saying you answered the question badly.
 
Last edited:
Pyrrhus said:
Obsessive
Compulsive
Disorder

This is probably the one I'd hire from what I've heard so far, honestly. Stereotype being you have an excellent work ethic when it comes to the monotonous tasks that nobody else around the lab can focus long enough to keep up on.
 
Pythagorean said:
This is probably the one I'd hire from what I've heard so far, honestly. Stereotype being you have an excellent work ethic when it comes to the monotonous tasks that nobody else around the lab can focus long enough to keep up on.

The only problem is of course how severe is it and can you actually leave the house most days? :smile:
 
OCD: :smile: But can you carry on a conversation on the phone or type anything useful on your keyboard before giving into the overwhelming urge to sanitize it? (or lick it? )
 
physics girl phd said:
OCD: :smile: But can you carry on a conversation on the phone or type anything useful on your keyboard before giving into the overwhelming urge to sanitize it? (or lick it? )

That's more OCC obsesseive cleanliness compulsive. There are people who are more obsessed with patterns and superstitions who don't really get all that bothered by germs and people who's only problem seems to be with sanitation, and then there are people who are bothered by everything that is out of their comfort zone. Kind of a spectrum.
 
Calrid said:
The only problem is of course how severe is it and can you actually leave the house most days? :smile:

All good professors should have a couch in their lab so that when their crazy grad students finally get there, it's easier for them to stay there for several days in a row. Extended catch and release program.
 
AlephZero said:
Intolerant of arbitrary and pointless restrictions.

Think about it ...

Amen!
 

Similar threads

How would you describe briefly your own mental modeling of chemistry?

  • pellis
  • · Replies 69 ·
  • Chemistry
3
Replies
69
  • Poll Poll

News What political inclination would you describe yourself as?

  • Char. Limit
  • · Replies 108 ·
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
108