miam11•14d ago

The whole "eye contact is required" thing in job interviews is a trap that hurts autistic people more than it helps.

I sat through a 45-minute interview last week where the hiring manager kept saying I seemed "distracted" because I was looking at my notes instead of her face, and she never asked a single question about my actual driving record or route planning, so has anyone else just started telling interviewers upfront that you process better without staring at them?

2 comments

2 Comments

charles_coleman14d ago

Yeah, I mean, I gotta ask though - if you're looking down at your notes the whole time, how does the interviewer know you're actually engaged? That phrase you mentioned about 'seeming distracted' - that's the real issue. They can't read your mind, they can only go by what they see. Look, it sucks that neurotypical expectations are the default, but until the system changes, you're the one who has to adapt if you want the job. It ain't fair, but neither is getting passed over for someone who looked them in the eye.

kevin_schmidt9713d ago

charles_coleman you're right that they can't read minds, but here's the thing nobody's talking about - forcing eye contact actually makes my answers WORSE. When I'm staring at someone's face my brain is too busy processing facial expressions to think about what I'm saying. That's the real lose-lose here. They think I'm not engaged when I look down, but if I force myself to look at them my actual answers come out slower and less detailed. So really, which version of "not engaged" do they want? The one where I'm taking time to think and give a good answer, or the one where I'm staring at them but forgetting half my training? Maybe if more interviewers understood that note-taking and thinking space is part of how some people actually focus, they'd get better hires instead of just better actors.