How Would You Describe Yourself in Three Words?

[Jack21222]

I feel like I just bombed an interview, because I stumbled badly over the following question:

Describe yourself in three words, and explain why you chose each word.

I could only come up with two words when put on the spot like that.

So, I present the challenge to you all: describe yourself in 3 words, explain why you chose each word, and do it in the context of an interview.

 

[qspeechc]

"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.

 

[lisab]

Currently on PF.

 

[jhae2.718]

Not these words.

 

[dacruick]

ambitious (this insinuates both hard working and passionate, two great qualities. it also gives an impression of a level of initiative that you will bring)
personable (to me this means that you will be easy to work with, and you bring to the table a positive effect on the workplace atmosphere. No one wants to hire someone that the rest of the people in the office won't like)

and for the third one, I would make it very job dependent. If you're going to be programming or something like that I would say go with analytical.

actually an idea just came to me. Maybe you could go with something like "sharp". This is a really interesting answer, one that they wouldn't expect. To me, someone who is sharp is smart, quick, punctual, well dressed, and critical in terms of problem solving. I think this choice brings a lot to the table.

 

[dacruick]

"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.

I resent this comment. Taking the approach that the questions you are being asked in an interview are silly makes you look silly. And that attitude will undoubtedly show through whatever answer you give, pretty much assuring that you don't get the position. Your interviewer has a certain approach that he/she wants to take, and asking questions that put you on the spot can tell you a lot about someones character. People rarely get hired based solely on meeting technical requirements. If you're going to be interviewing 10 people with similar credentials, you need something to set someone apart.

 

[Proton Soup]

not your mamma

 

[Pattonias]

Questions like this are the result of to much corporate HR research combined with a person who conducts interviews simply because it is their job and they don't really like interacting with people. To me, you know you had a good interview when you carry a conversation about the job and your work history without having to answer stupid stock questions on a sheet. Start with small talk and try to keep the conversation related to the job and just be a nice person. Worked so far.

 

[Dembadon]

I'm incredibly diligent; I've always taken a great deal of pride in my work and am always looking for ways in which I can improve what I do. I have a high value for efficiency, and it shows in my work.

I'm also motivated; you don't have to micromanage me to see whether or not I'm on task. I'm highly adept at time management and have no issues staying on top of my work so that deadlines are met.

I'm professional; I have exceptional interpersonal and communication skills and am honest, courteous, and effective when communicating with others.

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

Possible responses:


"You need me."

"I am awesome."

"Where am I?"

"I'm a supervillian."

"Is this on?"

"Is it over?"

"Ouch that hurt."

"Asteroid hits Earth."

"Today we die."

"I am insane."

"Weird things happen."


Its not that hard to come up with them.

 

[BobG]

Generally, you should have certain things you want to say about yourself in an interview and shouldn't rely on the interviewer to ask the right questions.

In other words, don't try to describe yourself. Pick three things about your past work history that you think would be relevant and use adjectives that lead into the things you wanted to tell them, anyway.

I developed a spread sheet where, given just a few general guidelines, workers could copy a color-coded and labeled box that represented a certain piece of equipment and paste it to a certain frequency and keep doing so until all of the boxes/frequencies were covered and a different box would indicate Green (you definitely had enough power for that configuration), Yellow (uh, don't count on it, since environmental conditions will probably prevent it from working at least some of the time), Red (no way it will work even in the best conditions). Between the general guidelines and trial and error, a worker could determine an effective configuration for all of his equipment in just minutes.

Analytical or, perhaps creative given the visual interface I used, could be used for that story.

And so on for each story you want to tell.

Some day I want to interview an employee and ask him/her how high they can count. The one that responds that they need a calculator to figure that out will probably get the job - unless a different candidate can figure that out using a slide rule plus a little mental math (a slide rule will only get you 3 to 4 digit precision, depending which end of the slide rule you wind up on).

 

[revnaknuma]

musician, physicist, psychologist.

 

[Doc Al]

me so pretty?

 

[jhae2.718]

Some day I want to interview an employee and ask him/her how high they can count. The one that responds that they need a calculator to figure that out will probably get the job - unless a different candidate can figure that out using a slide rule plus a little mental math (a slide rule will only get you 3 to 4 digit precision, depending which end of the slide rule you wind up on).

That's actually an interesting question. (Looks like I know what I'll be doing tonight...)

 

[arildno]

Lazy crazy daisy??

 

[BobG]

Some day I want to interview an employee and ask him/her how high they can count. The one that responds that they need a calculator to figure that out will probably get the job - unless a different candidate can figure that out using a slide rule plus a little mental math (a slide rule will only get you 3 to 4 digit precision, depending which end of the slide rule you wind up on).

That's actually an interesting question. (Looks like I know what I'll be doing tonight...)

Looks like I left out part of that. It's how high can they count on their fingers and toes? That would get most people wondering if I was looking to hire only mutants. Or discriminated against people with a tendency for lawn mower accidents.

 

[Jack21222]

I think you are better off not working for a company that asks such stupid questions.

NASA? I think I'd take the internship even if they asked me the color of my bowel movement that morning.

 

[qspeechc]

I resent this comment. Taking the approach that the questions you are being asked in an interview are silly makes you look silly. And that attitude will undoubtedly show through whatever answer you give, pretty much assuring that you don't get the position. Your interviewer has a certain approach that he/she wants to take, and asking questions that put you on the spot can tell you a lot about someones character. People rarely get hired based solely on meeting technical requirements. If you're going to be interviewing 10 people with similar credentials, you need something to set someone apart.

It's odd to say you resent my comment. Are you an interviewer who uses such questions?

Of course if you want a job then you should suck up and play their silly games. But sucking up is sucking up. Maybe you think the question is not silly. Then we have a more fundamental disagreement.

I will admit I went too far when I said "I think you are better off not working for a company that asks such stupid questions". The person interviewing you might not even work for the company, they could be hired to do the interviewing. And even if he or she does work for the company, a sample of 1 person is no reasonable basis to extrapolate. On the other hand, the company must have chose someone they trust to do the interview. So take it how you like.

 

[qspeechc]

NASA? I think I'd take the internship even if they asked me the color of my bowel movement that morning.

So even NASA can ask stupid questions :p

 

[BobG]

NASA? I think I'd take the internship even if they asked me the color of my bowel movement that morning.

Heck, for an internship at NASA, I'd even be willing to sing for them.

http://www.astrocappella.com/IYA/shoulders.shtml

Well, at least the group used to all be NASA employees when it was first formed. I don't think that's the case anymore.

 

[BobG]

On the other hand, the company must have chose someone they trust to do the interview. So take it how you like.

You'd be shocked how little some job interviewers know about interviewing prospective employees. A person in HR might be qualified to interview applicants, but then they're probably not qualified to understand the qualifications needed for a job in a more technical department. A person working in a technical department will know what qualifications are needed for the job and can probably narrow down the field pretty well just by looking at past experience and education, but that doesn't mean they have a clue about how to conduct a job interview.

One of the program leads I've worked with always hated doing job interviews. He always felt more awkward than the interviewee, especially if he had to conduct it with one of the other program leads I've worked with. The second guy always asked bizarre questions, such as "What Calculus book did you use in college?" ("Uh, I think it was yellow, but I'm not sure seeing as how I took Calculus 10 years ago." "Wrong! The right answer was ... and that year's edition was blue!" "Uh, maybe?")

 

[dacruick]

It's odd to say you resent my comment. Are you an interviewer who uses such questions?

Of course if you want a job then you should suck up and play their silly games. But sucking up is sucking up. Maybe you think the question is not silly. Then we have a more fundamental disagreement.

I will admit I went too far when I said "I think you are better off not working for a company that asks such stupid questions". The person interviewing you might not even work for the company, they could be hired to do the interviewing. And even if he or she does work for the company, a sample of 1 person is no reasonable basis to extrapolate. On the other hand, the company must have chose someone they trust to do the interview. So take it how you like.

I had just finished writing what I thought was a very good and well thought out response to the question when I saw your post, so that's where the resentment came from. From my post, it is obvious that I don't think the question is silly. When going into an interview scenario, you have to have respect for the person you're being interviewed by. If you have that respect, and you get asked what you think is a "silly" question, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. You put a childish spin on it when you called it "sucking up", and I see that you have a closed minded approach to the question in the first place. Can you honestly tell me you don't see any potential value in that question?

 

[Tregg Smith]

social and anti-social

 

[drizzle]

Acts > Words

 

[fluidistic]

Ask me again.

 

[Pythagorean]

slow methodical elitist

or

IQ is 85

 

[Antiphon]

You didn't fail he interview by coming up with two of three. The answers can't be incorrect. It's a meta-test used to judge tge speed and quality of your creativity and passion. It's the interview version of the inkblot where the shrink asks you what you see. He isn't testing your eyesight.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Nocturnal bipedal mammal.

 

[jhae2.718]

It's the interview version of the inkblot where the shrink asks you what you see. He isn't testing your eyesight.

I'm the type of person who would say "An inkblot test as designed by Rorschach" for every one...

 

[jhae2.718]

Warm-blooded bipedal mammal.

That's four words! (Unless we count from 0 :) )

 

[Math Is Hard]

That's four words! (Unless we count from 0 :) )

I edited. I realized warm-blooded and mammal were redundant.

 

[Antiphon]

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."

 

[alt]

"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.

 

[Calrid]

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.

 

[alt]

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.

 

[Calrid]

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?

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?

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.

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!

 

[AlephZero]

Intolerant of arbitrary and pointless restrictions.

Think about it ...

 

[Calrid]

Intolerant of arbitrary and pointless restrictions.

Think about it ...

In the work place or generally?



You wouldn't get the job, but you'd score marks in unexpected answers.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

 

[Calrid]

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

 

[Mihael]

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.)

 

[Astronuc]

That's all folks!

 

[rootX]

dogs peppers beach!

 

[Pyrrhus]

Obsessive
Compulsive
Disorder

 

[Lacy33]

Intolerant of arbitrary and pointless restrictions.

Think about it ...

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

But came back to the thread with
Never on time.

 

[Calrid]

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

 

[Calrid]

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

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.