Lying to a candidate immediately sets a pretty bad image of the company. While someone might try to put things in the best light as possible, maybe with some small exaggeration. That is a huge difference between "I am lying to you"
Isn't 'lying' a bit strong here? When ALittleLight said
> I always preface these sections of the interview with a moment to explain that I expect them to push back and disagree if I say something they think is wrong so that we can talk about it.
I interpreted that as, at least implicitly, flagging to the interviewee that not everything the interviewer says will accurately represent his/her views. Perhaps it could be made clearer, but it doesn't seem like the intent is to deceive.
Yes, I intentionally didn't go into to much detail and I think that's obscured what I was trying to say. I explicitly tell the candidate that I may defend points I disagree with and that I want them to push back if they disagree. Furthermore, the interview question where I do this is about a hypothetical project where we are prioritizing work that needs to be done in order to ship a project. While I didn't offer the clarity in the earlier comment, I don't think there's a way it could fairly be interpreted as lying or deceiving.
The poster literally said they were going to intentionally say things that they know are false.
That's pretty much the definition of a liar and outright deceptive.
Besides that, the tactic of trying to be debative and in this case outright dishonest and slightly combative is an incredibly terrible method for interviews.
Honestly the poster should be banned from giving interviews.
The poster is using an interview technique of creating an imaginary scenario, e.g. "deal with a work colleague who is advocating a sub-optimal position". This seems entirely reasonable.
It seems to me that you've jumped to a very strong conclusion, based on a brief conversation that you have interpreted in the least charitable way possible.
