The Job Interview Script and the Danger of Thinking
There is a script for job interviews, and everyone follows it—knowingly or not.
The interviewer plays the role of the gatekeeper, the candidate plays the role of the humble supplicant, and the entire exchange is a carefully managed ritual of submission.
The unspoken rule: You must constantly justify yourself, while they never have to justify their judgment.
I once had a job interview for a social work position, but the interviewer fixated on one question:
"Why did you study an MA in Philosophy instead of an MA in Psychology, after your BA in Social Work?"
I gave the real answer:
"Because I like philosophy."
She frowned. There was no practical value, no commercial utility in that. She wanted a response that fit into her script—a justification that made me a more profitable, predictable hire.
She even asked, with a hint of sarcasm, “Do you plan to have philosophical conversations with clients?”
I kept it short:
"It depends."
She looked at me with a silent question mark in her eyes, expecting a longer justification.
"If philosophical conversations helps clients gain a deeper understanding of their situation."
That was the moment the interview ended—not officially, but in reality. I had broken the script. The moment I refused to defend studying Philosophy as ‘useful’ career choice, I had disqualified myself in her eyes. She wasn’t looking for a candidate; she was looking for compliance.
In my head, I thought of Schiller’s argument on the ‘Brot-und-Butter-Gelehrte’—the scholar who only values knowledge that brings immediate financial return.
To her, an education was only valid if it increased job market value. Anything beyond that was freak territory.
Rollo May and the Fear of Thinking
Existential Psychologist Rollo May wrote that real thinking is dangerous. It disrupts certainty, forces confrontation with ambiguity, and threatens the comfortable order of things. That’s why society doesn’t reward real thinking—it rewards compliance.
A job interview is not an exchange of ideas. It is a test of submission.
You are expected to fit into a structure that has already been decided. The interviewer does not expect real answers; they expect answers that confirm the logic of their system. The candidate is not evaluated on depth of thought, but on willingness to play the role assigned to them.
May called this the loss of existential courage—the fear of breaking away from institutionalized roles.
The interviewer wasn’t just asking about my qualifications. She was asking: Are you one of us? Do you accept the world as we see it?
The moment I refused to justify myself on their terms, the interview was over.
Not because I was unqualified.
Not because I couldn’t do the job.
But because I refused to play the game.
And in a world where scripts are everything, breaking the script is the greatest disqualification of all.