The language trap you must know in the interview is the language trap covered by "provocation", which is the usual means for the interviewer to eliminate most candidates. Interviewers who use this technique often stare at each other with suspicious, sharp and provocative eyes before asking questions, shilling each other's psychological defense line step by step, and then suddenly provoke each other with an obviously unfriendly question. For example, "Your experience is too simple, but we need people with rich social experience", "Your personality is too introverted, which is probably not suitable for our major", "We need graduates from famous universities, but you didn't graduate from famous universities" and "Why doesn't your major match the position you are applying for?" In the face of such aggressive questioning, as an applicant, the first thing to do is not to be "provoked" anyway. If you are angered, then you have lost. So, in the face of such a problem, how to bring it?

□ If the other person says, "Your experience is too simple, but we need people with rich social experience."

■ You can answer with a smile: "I am sure that if I am destined to join your company, I will soon become a person with rich social experience. I wish I had this experience. "

□ If the other person says, "You are too introverted, it is probably not suitable for our profession."

■ You can answer with a smile: "It is said that introverts often have the qualities of dedication and perseverance, and I am good at listening, because I think we should leave more opportunities to speak to others."

□ If the other party says, "We need graduates from famous universities, and you didn't graduate from famous universities."

■ You can say humorously, "I heard that Bill Gates didn't graduate from Harvard University either."

□ If the other party says, "Why does your major not meet the position you are applying for?"

■ You can skillfully answer: "It is said that the most sought-after talents in the 2 1 century are compound talents, and the inspiration of laymen may exceed that of experts because they have no fixed thinking and rules."

If the other person says, "Your old company is so good, but you want to leave, is it because you can't get along with your old company and you will move to a new place?" If you are tongue-tied, speechless, angry, quarrelling or blushing, you will fall into the trap set by the other party. In this case, the candidate should be calm and understand that the other party is "acting" and there is no need to compete with him. Challenging language trap is characterized by starting from the weakest place of job seekers.

For fresh graduates, the interviewer will ask, "Your relevant work experience is relatively lacking. What do you think? " For female college students, the interviewer may ask: "Women often lack confidence in their abilities. What do you think? " If your answer is "not necessarily", "I don't think so" or "not at all", then maybe you have fallen into the trap, because the other person wants to hear your opinion on this issue, not a simple and blunt rebuttal.

For such a question, you can use "this statement is not necessarily all right", "this view is worth exploring" and "this statement has some truth, but I'm afraid I can't accept it completely" as the opening remarks, and then express your different opinions diplomatically.

Sometimes the interviewer will ask questions that embarrass the job seeker. For example, "your academic performance is not very good." What's wrong? " "Judging from your resume, you didn't have any experience as a student cadre during your college years, will this affect your work ability" and so on.

When confronted with such problems, some job seekers often put on a defensive posture involuntarily, and even severely hit back at each other. Doing so will only fall into the trap of overconfidence, leading to "arrogant" evaluation. The best way to answer this question is not to hide and avoid it, nor to be too straightforward, but to talk about shortcomings, discuss advantages and skillfully bypass it.

For example, when the other party says that your academic performance is not very good, you can admit it frankly, and then bring out your other advantages by analyzing the reasons. For example, I didn't do well in school because I was the head of the club and put too much energy into the club activities. Although my hard work in the club has also brought me a lot of gains, my academic performance is not the best, which has been bothering me. When I realized this, I have been trying to correct my deviation.

Michael, who has won many interviews, has had such an interview experience. Michael's academic performance is not top-notch. During the interview, this became the key to the examiner's attack: "Your academic performance doesn't seem to be outstanding. How do you prove your learning ability? "

Michael took his time: "I have other activities besides studying." It is not only grades that can reflect people's learning ability. In fact, my professional courses are quite good. If you have any questions, you can test my professional knowledge on the spot. " Michael cleverly bypassed the embarrassing question and directed the examiner's attention to his best professional knowledge. Induce language traps. The characteristic of this kind of questions is that the interviewer often sets specific background conditions to induce the other party to make wrong answers, because perhaps none of the answers can satisfy the other party. At this time, your answer needs to be expressed in vague language.

For example, "at your current level, I'm afraid you can find a better company than us?"

If your answer is "yes", then you may be in two boats, "in Cao Cao's heart, in Han." If you answer "no", it means that you lack confidence in yourself, or there is something wrong with your ability.

For such questions, we can start with "we can't generalize" and then answer: "Maybe I can find a better company than yours, but other companies may not attach as much importance to talent training as your company and have as many opportunities as your company; Maybe I can find a better company, and I think it is most important to cherish what I have. "

In this way, you are actually throwing a "vague" answer back to the interviewer.

Another induced language trap is that the other person's question seems to be a multiple-choice question, and you fall into the trap when you choose it. For example, the other person asks, "Which do you think is more important, money, fame or career?"

Of course, for college students who have just graduated, all three are very important. But the other person's question is misleading you, making you feel that "the three are contradictory and you can only choose one." At this time, you must not fall into the trap of the other party, and you must calmly analyze it. We can clearly point out that this premise does not exist first, and then explain to us the importance and unity of the three.

You can organize the language like this, "I don't think the three are contradictory." As a college student with higher education, the pursuit of career success is of course the main theme of his life. The way society affirms our cause is sometimes manifested in money, sometimes in reputation, and sometimes both. Therefore, I think we should get money and fame in the process of pursuing our career, which are very important to us. "

Similarly, there is a misleading trap. The interviewer had the answer, but deliberately said the opposite answer. If you please blindly and follow the interviewer's wrong answer, the conclusion of the interview must be: this person has no opinion and lacks innovative spirit. Naturally, it is listed as eliminated. There is also a test language trap. The characteristic of this kind of question is to make up a situation first and then let the job seeker answer it. For example, "the candidates who participated in the interview today are nearly 10. How do you prove that you are the best? " This kind of question is often to examine the ability of job seekers to improvise. No matter how many advantages you give yourself, others always have advantages that you may not have. It is meaningless to answer this question directly. You can go around the front and answer this question from the side.

You can answer: "for this, it may depend on the specific situation." For example, what your company needs now is administrative talents. Although all the candidates are peers in this field, I am convinced that my experience as a student cadre and presiding over community work during my college years has laid a solid foundation for me, which I think is more prominent. " Such an answer can be said to be smooth sailing, and it is difficult for the other party to seize the handle and fight back again.

Sometimes, the interviewer will ask such a question: "Do you like or hate trivial work? Why?"

This is a dilemma. If you like it, it seems to violate the actual psychology of educated youth. If you hate it, it seems that every job has trivial things. Therefore, according to general psychology, people are unwilling to do trivial work (except for special posts, such as domestic hourly workers), that is, the examiner knows perfectly well past ask, and we can infer that drunkenness lies not in wine, but in "work attitude".

We can express our attitude by saying, "In most jobs, trivial things are inevitable. If there are trivial things to do at work, I will do them seriously, patiently and meticulously. "

This sentence not only euphemistically expresses the general psychology of most people-they don't like trivial work, but also emphasizes their persistence in trivial things-seriousness, patience and meticulousness. Both authentic and in line with each other's employment psychology.

Among all kinds of language traps, the most difficult and dangerous one may be the one that leads a gentleman into an urn.

For example, if the position you are applying for is a financial manager of a company, the interviewer may suddenly ask you: "As a financial manager, what would you do if I (the general manager) asked you to evade taxes within 1 year 1 10,000 yuan?" If you scratch your head and think of a tax evasion plan on the spot, or a lot of tax evasion plans are listed immediately, then you fall into the trap and fall into the trap. Because the interviewer who throws this question is testing your business judgment and business ethics. Remember, obeying the law is the most basic requirement of employee behavior.

For example, you will change jobs from one company to another. The interviewer asks you, "Is your boss difficult to get along with? Why else did you quit? " Maybe his guess is the reason why you want to jump ship. Even so, you should remember not to be confused by this sympathetic tone, let alone climb the pole. If you attack your boss angrily, or accuse your company with indignation, then you must be finished, because this not only exposes your intolerance, but also exposes your narrowness. During the interview, the interviewer may design various language traps, but as long as the goal is right, the enemy will block it and the water will cover it.