How would you pick up that someone is using Ni?

[Poki]

I'm of the opinion that the other person's functional traits are irrelevant; we all have to develop ourselves to be able to coexist with all kinds of people.

yes but recognizing when another person is in different stages will help you adapt to that person and coexist. Its part of a perception trait.

edit: it came across as if we shouldnt learn others only ourself.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

- steps back and looks at the bigger picture; seems to synthesize a lot of things and communicates a perspective based on those things
- provides depth of insight on a problem with an orientation towards what is going to happen in the future
- tends to be conceptual in nature

I strongly agree with the first point. That’s how I see it as it works in me anyway. But I’ve always had a problem understanding the ‘future’ orientation that Ni is supposed to have. The only way I can figure ‘future’ into it is if I apply it in terms of constantly thinking of ways to improve things, which- since any improvements will affect future outcomes- affects the future I guess. But I largely don’t see Ni as predicting events so much as pointing out what’s wrong in the present system/structure.

If I'm a Ni-aux, I don't feel like Ni is impossible to explain, communicate, or understand. The way I experience Pi (and like I said I don't know whether this is descriptive of Si or Ni) it's like a digital signature. I don't ever believe the encryption is impossible to break or decode, it's just up to the person to decide how far willing they are to decode it. When I try to decode and communicate, I'm very adamant about finding evidence to support myself. I don't want to come across as a loose cannon, pulling things out of the air without any support for why I believe what I believe. I don't feel like that's a way to establish trust with people and I certainly don't expect anyone to trust or believe me on some unverifiable hunch or belief, or hell strong delusion that only I can see. This ain't the movies, if someone says, "Just trust me on this," my automatic response is "Why should I?"

Exactly. It’s incredibly difficult at times, but I firmly feel the onus to provide clear proof for what I sense. I’ve got a pretty short fuse with people who insist they’re right without being willing to do the work of figuring out how to provide a reasonable explanation for why they arrived at the conclusions they did. I don’t expect anyone to believe me without doing that work myself. It is astoundingly difficult at times, it isn't linear- but it is traceable- so it’s a matter of going in and rearranging the information into a linear fashion to make it presentable to others. This is why I agree with what others have said, earlier in the thread, that it’s infinitely easier to work through things with other Ni folk. I might perceive a problem with Y- and unless I’m with someone else who thinks in the same non-linear way- I’ll have to do the work of setting up A through X before explaining the problem. And if the problem with Y is really bothering me, then I’ll be too distracted to figure out how to set up A through X first- and I just flat out won’t make sense to most people.

^ I've always maintained on these boards that Ni IS traceable and that I can explain my thoughts/perceptions/opinions if I really wanted to. For myself, it can be hard to verbalize it, and nearly impossible sometimes to articulate on-the-spot if I'm asked to, say, explain my views on religion (I like to use that as an example because to fully explain WHY I've concluded what I've concluded, it would involve articulating 70 pages of single-space writing that I wrote at one time, and that writing itself isn't organized in a way that would be presentable - all of the 'pieces' are there, but I haven't connected them. For me, the sum of the pieces = my vague statement, as they automatically tie in my mind, but to explain them together, in a more logical format - to others - would be more challenging). But complex topics aside, generally it's why I prefer the written format vs. talking - it's just easier because I have all the time I need to gather and present what's in my mind - in far more detail than I tend to give in speaking. But yeah - if asked, I'll do my best to explain, always.

Sometimes I am not immediately aware of why I feel or think the way I do, but yeah, if I spend time I can figure out why and articulate that. But, sometimes for me it can take TIME to sort through all of that, and it may too involve a good number of questions if I realize I am in need of more information.

But I hate, hate the whole 'voodoo' association with Ni. It's not magic. I think for Ni-doms especially though, the articulation piece is a little more challenging, and with some, there might therefore be a tendency towards laziness or just 'not seeing a point' in articulating all of the details. But to be fair too, I think a lot of times our vague statements or assertions seem 'Obvious' and we forget that it's not obvious others, or we might wrongly assume it's not necessary to explain everything that led us up to the assertion, because we might think others will have made all of the steps we made in our heads to get there. Or something.

Also, for myself at least, I need *reasons* for thinking or believing what I believe. If things don't make sense, if there isn't logic there, if it isn't supported by reality, I won't believe it in the first place. I don't believe or think 'just because' or without substantiation. That's almost abhorrent to me. So I don't just pull things out of thin air. I might have a nagging something-or-other that starts things off, but I then dig and figure out what's going on and go from there. So in my head I have reasons; the disconnect is my maybe not automatically articulating this stuff -- but this is what I described above.

+1 to all of this. As it applies to the op, the part about not always recognizing when some connection is obvious is a pretty big obstacle. In other words- about picking up on when someone is using Ni- we can make statements that seem to make no damn sense. The comparison Jennifer made to seeing a train car- without being able to figure out where it came from because there aren’t any tracks in sight- describes it pretty well. Even when I put effort into making it presentable, I often have trouble discerning what connections most people do or do not see on their own.

Also, this:

The way I think I pick up on someone is using Ni is I feel like they're searching more. I tend to more easily identify the "digger/searcher Ni" than the "mystical/magical Ni." I'm a Battlestar Galactica geek and there was a storyline with Lucy Lawless's character D'anna. She kept shooting herself in the head in order to catch glimpses of the Final Five. She absolutely would not stop until she figured out who they were. Each time she killed herself and downloaded into a new body, it was more and more painful but she had to know who they were. It wasn't enough for her to just have the vision once and believe what she saw. She didn't necessarily think what she saw was untrue, but she needed more confirmation. I contrast this with Laura Roslin who had the vision once and didn't need to constantly revisit it in order to believe, it was seared into her the first time.

I tend to apply incoming information to ‘the forest’ instead of just ‘the trees’ in front of me. I don’t just apply it to the situation at hand. [I'm not trying to milk the 'big picture' shtick here that gets overused (and poorly explained) in N/S discussions; I get as annoyed as anyone when others use 'big picture' in a manner that resembles ego stroking/poor attempts at 'discrediting' the other side more than actual clarification.] It’s my default to instantly wonder if there are situations where the information doesn’t apply, or if it applies differently- and if it applies differently I think about how/why context changes it. An oversimplified example: if someone says, “You shouldn’t take candy from a baby”, then “What if s/he’s choking?” will instantly pop into my head. This isn’t something I do consciously, I don’t look for exceptions to the rule, but I’ll sort of feel something tugging on my sleeve whispering ‘What about this?’ as I take in information. So my attention gets pulled to the side while I figure out what ‘this’ is. A serious downside is that I have trouble seeing 'the trees' in front of me the way most people do. I'm forever distracted by something. And I misunderstand things constantly because 'What else could this mean?' interferes with me getting the interpretation of information that most people seem to automatically understand. It's like there's some social gluent that holds people together that I can't seem to grasp sometimes.

 

[sciski]

I know this guy- a public speaker. When he speaks, people say he goes all over the place with his points, but when he brings it home, it all makes sense. He wraps it up neatly (well, sometimes). That's Ni. I love how he takes seemingly unrelated things and is able to make connections, or use them to support his conclusions. Sometimes as he's setting up his points, I'm able to make the connection before he actually says it. Not that I am using Ni, but at least my Si ability helps me to follow what he's saying and build right along with him, not look at him with the face.

I'm not sure if this is Ni. Isn't 'making seemingly unrelated connections' an Ne thing? Ne is about being able to see the patterns and connections that are out there in the world, waiting to be found--those really highly skilled at it can see the patterns that most of us don't look for, hence the points seem unrelated until the links are made explicit by the person who sees them.

Ni is more like a scalpel that shoots through single concepts (that can include a conception of an entire situation), trying to get to the core truth or 'correctness' of the concept. You could possibly think of it as extreme, deliberate skepticism (different from when an Ne user is just playing devil's advocate to generate more ideas). This is possibly why people shoot eye lasers when using Ni... in a way, they do cut into whatever they are thinking about. It's like trying to see through lots of fluff and obscuring objects to get to the truth of something... like trying to see a solid scaffold that is encased in moving mist. Ni shoots the laser to cut through the mist. When you finally see the scaffold, there is the "Aha!" moment. Ni breaks down, Ne connects.

Of course, your public speaker could still be using Ni predominantly, but I suspect your example is showing his Ne... and your ability to follow along makes sense as you use Si/Ne. My husband is the same... strong Si/Ne. He sometimes wonders why I can be slow to connect the dots and I wonder why he is so slow to see the truth behind what is apparently the truth. I'm talking what seems to be absolute, subjective truth.

I also relate to Protean's description... Ni is like a little ferret that digs and digs and digs until it finds what it needs to find. I don't think the process itself is unconscious, but it is somewhat unbidden, and hard to explain because at the end of the process, all you have is dirt scattered everywhere, a bunch of holes with only one that led to the correct thought, and a very tired ferret.

I am probably ISFP, so may be describing tertiary Ni, but I don't use Ni to connect the dots... Connecting dots gets in the way of seeing the truth. That would be like the ferret digging holes while clipping clotheslines to the bottom of each hole so that they're all dragging behind it as it digs. Each new line would just increase the chances of tripping up the ferret.

Anyway, to see it in action... one clue, I think, is the breaking off into thought partway through a talk... or a long pause while they think things through, and then the next thing they say is the new idea or perception that seems to come out of nowhere. I guess that's because it actually has NO link with anything, and that's why it comes out of nowhere. I suspect that any explanatory links are generated subsequently in an attempt to make the Ni idea more palatable/understandable to others.

Anyhow, that's my take. I am open to the possibility that I am describing entirely different processes and just have been ferreting down the wrong hole.

 

[highlander]

Eyes. Literally. Physically. "Piercing" and "Beady" might be good to describe it. But I am not sure.

I think I may have done this with somebody that I interviewed today for a job. We need people and I wanted to find reasons to hire him. I was working very hard to get him to explain what he did to support the words on his resume. It had to be difficult for him because at the end of the day, he put together a really nice combination of words that were appealing on his resume but he didn't have the experience to back it up. There was a lot of spin. It must have been uncomfortable. I don't feel too bad though because he put down these things and I was simply trying to understand what he actually did. When he didn't answer the questions, I continued to probe. So, I look off to the side while I'm formulating these penetrating and relentless questions, then hone in on him and allow him to respond. I think I'd be uncomfortable on the other end of that.

Yeah, I do a lot better with Ni people who can reverse-engineer/explicate their vision via a reasoning process, and then I get it and feel like they get me. But otherwise in the worst situations it's like seeing a train appear in the middle of a desert without any tracks. How did that get there? Why did it get there?

The point of my post is that, to Ni, it isn't always clear that the Ni-observations require explanation. It's obvious, after all.

It is astoundingly difficult at times, it isn't linear- but it is traceable- so it’s a matter of going in and rearranging the information into a linear fashion to make it presentable to others.

I actually don't think it is very traceable. Why? There are too many data points. They are correlated mostly unconsciously. They aren't going to make a lot of sense to other people even if you could pull them all out.

It might seem like it is reverse engineering or explaining the rationale but it is not. For an Ni Dom, we're primarily using the auxiliary. It is 1) like a counter-balance to an irrational perception and 2) a means by which the message is packaged up in a way to be understandable and meaningful to the outside world.

I strongly agree with the first point. That’s how I see it as it works in me anyway. But I’ve always had a problem understanding the ‘future’ orientation that Ni is supposed to have. The only way I can figure ‘future’ into it is if I apply it in terms of constantly thinking of ways to improve things, which- since any improvements will affect future outcomes- affects the future I guess. But I largely don’t see Ni as predicting events so much as pointing out what’s wrong in the present system/structure.

You're right. I do this too. I can pick apart almost anything - look for flaws or things to improve. It is very much about future outcomes though as you said which, well, is the future. So you don't predict what will happen? You're not looking for ways to to head off future problems?

 

[proteanmix]

I think I may have done this with somebody that I interviewed today for a job. We need people and I wanted to find reasons to hire him. I was working very hard to get him to explain what he did to support the words on his resume. It had to be difficult for him because at the end of the day, he put together a really nice combination of words that were appealing on his resume but he didn't have the experience to back it up. There was a lot of spin. It must have been uncomfortable. I don't feel too bad though because he put down these things and I was simply trying to understand what he actually did. When he didn't answer the questions, I continued to probe. So, I look off to the side while I'm formulating these penetrating and relentless questions, then hone in on him and allow him to respond. I think I'd be uncomfortable on the other end of that.

I think the bolded was your trigger. You suspected spin, that something was amiss. What was that something?

 

[1487610420]

I think my most obvious observations of Ni in my boyfriend (an INTJ) is in his explanations of his most fundamental opinions. As an example, he holds the opinion that when it comes to looks, what people should strive for is to have their "outer self" look as much as their "true, inner self" as possible. The closer someone is to this goal, the more beautiful they are. (I think this could indicate Fi too, though.) As a contrast, I, with Ne, aim to not get stuck in a specific "look" but be everchanging.

I'm not saying that this is an opinion that could only be held by people with Ni, or that all people with Ni holds it, but rather that the choice of the words he uses when he explains it is. Someone else could say "People are beautiful when they look like they want to look." and it'd basically be the same thing, but the fact that he chooses an expression like "true, inner self" is indicative of Ni.

I’m not sure if that even made sense. Ah, well.

No, not really. But we get that you are deeply infatuated in love.

 

[ThatGirl]

I have the ability to spot an Ni user from across the room. From a comparison perspective it seems very familiar to me. Ni was a trait I always recognized in others without knowing why.

If you think about it, the familiarity comes from the understanding of someone else weaving through their world, much in the same way you do. Ni users seem to stick out like a sore thumb, to me, since not everyone acts from the same functions. I am familiar with it, so I see it.

I was joking to a friend one time who was watching me pour a fountain drink, which I filled up to the fullest extent while allowing for a lid, and not overflowing, in one shot. He laughed, “Nice pour!” I told him “That’s how you know someone is an NT.”

When asked why that would mean someone is an Nt, I responded that most of the sensory things which are often thought about, NTs didn’t just ignore them, they thought about them, then they thought about more.

Little sensory perfections, and big dumb intuitions are more a sign of an intuitive than someone who walks around pretending like they are autistic.

Now, that is N (with a T thing). In difference between Ne and Ni, I am going to start from my own comparison of interactions.

Ne seems to jump out at me out of nowhere. It is startling even if in a good way. During a conversation with an Ne user, you never have an idea of the direction it is taking. It is choppy, and goes in loops. One min you are heading in this direction, the next the position has changed.

I find Ne fun. A lot of fun. At times though I find it hard or annoying to try to keep up, unless I am really in a mood. It is …hyper N. Usually when Ne startles me, it snaps me out of attention to whatever I was thinking about like…..screeeech…..?.... Then I think about it for a second, and Lol.

Ni works a little differently. It is familiar to me, like I said I can spot it across the room, and I have very rarely been wrong. It is in everything they do. The way they carry themselves, the way they interact with others. The subtleties. Like someone said, they are big picture thinkers, have the ability to take a step back and analyze the situation.

An example would be, an Ni user who wants to appear attractive will more likely take on a confident walk than douse the shit out of their eyes with excessive make up.

Maybe that example does not ring true for all Ni users (remember I have Se in there somewhere), but the point is that you can recognize them by acting upon base theory, more so than projecting out a certain commonly held way of being.

They are less likely to do something categorized as the common “effect” to cause a specific "reaction". They get the same reaction, and stay on step, but from a more, base-core, philosophy or refined understanding.

Unless they are crazy, then they just default into “nothing is true, the world is shit” type mentalities.

To sum it up, Ni users seem to operate from a deeper yet simpler state of mind. They can refine to fit a certain situation, but even that will be because they have the ability to see how they must be in order to maximize the possibilities of the situation. Yet this understanding is from a deeper philosophy which isn’t as easily swayed surface influences.

 

[1487610420]

We need. smaller. character. limits.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I actually don't think it is very traceable. Why? There are too many data points. They are correlated mostly unconsciously. They aren't going to make a lot of sense to other people even if you could pull them all out.

It might seem like it is reverse engineering or explaining the rationale but it is not. For an Ni Dom, we're primarily using the auxiliary. It is 1) like a counter-balance to an irrational perception and 2) a means by which the message is packaged up in a way to be understandable and meaningful to the outside world.

I don't know about anyone else, but that's^ kinda what I meant by making it presentable: finding just enough data points to effectively demonstrate there's a solid reason for the conclusion I've arrived at. I won't spit out a conclusion and expect others to believe me if I can't come up with at least a few of the data points that led me there. I'm able to believe it myself before I can articulate it, but I don't expect anyone else to believe I *magically* know things. I'm wondering if the disjunction here is that I'm talking about conclusions involving people mostly (Fe aux), whereas maybe you're talking about something else?

You're right. I do this too. I can pick apart almost anything - look for flaws or things to improve. It is very much about future outcomes though as you said which, well, is the future. So you don't predict what will happen? You're not looking for ways to to head off future problems?

This is maybe nit-picking on my part. It's just that it doesn't seem future oriented to me. It's kind of like- I see a system, then a notice a flaw in the system, I speculate on why it doesn't work/what might work better then I think 'hey, I should apply this!' Like I said, I can see how it affects the future- but it doesn't start with thinking 'how can I make this better for future application?' It starts with me noticing something that isn't working in the present system. Probably totally splitting hairs here though.

 

[Jaguar]

We need. smaller. character. limits.

No. shit.

 

[highlander]

I think the bolded was your trigger. You suspected spin, that something was amiss. What was that something?

I think the "spin" comment might have been an observation after the fact but you are right, I did get an initial impression that he was not being honest in representing himself. I selected his resume - I OKed the interview. However, upon meeting him, I was a bit suspicious off the bat. Something seemed off. He looked 45 years old but according to his resume, he would be in his early 30s. Dates were missing. The combination of skills/words seemed too good to be true. He comes from a culture where I hate to say it, but there is tendency I have noticed having looked at a LOT of resumes, for people to exaggerate their credentials. When he answered questions, he would repeat back the generic words on his resume but refused to go into any detail behind them. There is one question I asked - he provided an obvious rehearsed response to a different question than the one I had asked. I thanked him for a wonderful story/great example but brought it back to the context of the original question and asked him how it related. It didn't. Then I gave him a chance to provide another example which he ultimately did. He kept saying my name (technique used by salesmen) and he kept referring to his "client service" skills (I'm in a client service business). He had a great example about reCaptcha which of course, I asked him to dive into details on. He didn't seem to know anything. This happened at least 5 or 6 times during the interview. I'd be curious and interested about his experience. I'd ask him to tell me more. He couldn't. So, my initial intuition was to probe on his experience. As I began to do that and it wasn't falling into place, I kept going until there was absolutely no doubt that he was 1) exaggerating his skills and experience and/or 2) extremely poor at communicating what he had done.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I doubt that there are alot of
1.clear signs that the person is skilled in using Ni.
2.signs that are pointing only on Ni.

However if you can spot a number of the following traits you are probably dealing with INJ (in my opinion)



1. The persons view of the concepts "past, present, future" is a little bit blurry.

2. Person is not showing any clear signs of bodylanguage, so instead it looks more like a statue most of the time. But it tends to walk faster than most people.

3. You say "This food tastes like crap" and the person replys with "But it is healthy and that is all that counts".

4. The person can pass next to the three cars that smashed into each other and not notice them.

5. The person is willing to challange the teacher. But not only on factual but also on methodological basis. Arguing that his kind of education system is leading us into economic and cultural collapse in incoming decades.

6. The person likes to end other people's sentences.

7. The person likes to think about things like: genocide, the end of love, political incorrectness , pointlessness of life , ..... etc. However the person talks about these subjects very calmly and analitically.

8. The person is asking you question that have nothing to do with where you are or what you are doing.

9. The person prefers dark or gray clothing.

10. The person's skill to recognize how a group that is bigger from 50 people should be organized is clearly above average.

11. The person has calculated how much money can he or she earn in its life-time if varoius events/scenarios occur. So no matter what happens person remains calm since he/she belives that it has seen all of it.

12. The person thinks that the "trial and error" approach is bad approach in almost all cases.

13. The person is often seen as scary or mystical by its environment.

14. The person often just says his/her judgement and what should be done about event X.

15. The person likes to redefine things and definitions.

16. The person is energized by complexity. (especially if the planning is involved)

17. The person remains self-confidant or at least mostly self-confidant even if there is no obversable reasons to feel like that.

18. The person likes sarcasm.

19. The person has a hard time remembering the strict line of 10 body moves and is gererally clumsy.

20. The person really likes to have the "last laught".




So if you see most of these traits pretty often in some person you are probably dealing with Ni-dom or at least Ni-aux. (But ok, this list is probably a little bit Te biased)

 

[Athenian200]

1. The persons view of the concepts "past, present, future" is a little bit blurry.

2. Person is not showing any clear signs of bodylanguage, so instead it looks more like a statue most of the time. But it tends to walk faster than most people.

3. You say "This food tastes like crap" and the person replys with "But it is healthy and that is all that counts".

4. The person can pass next to the three cars that smashed into each other and not notice them.

5. The person is willing to challange the teacher. But not only on factual but also on methodological basis. Arguing that his kind of education system is leading us into economic and cultural collapse in incoming decades.

6. The person likes to end other people's sentences.

7. The person likes to think about things like: genocide, the end of love, political incorrectness , pointlessness of life , ..... etc. However the person talks about these subjects very calmly and analitically.

8. The person is asking you question that have nothing to do with where you are or what you are doing.

9. The person prefers dark or gray clothing.

10. The person's skill to recognize how a group that is bigger from 50 people should be organized is clearly above average.

11. The person has calculated how much money can he or she earn in its life-time if varoius events/scenarios occur. So no matter what happens person remains calm since he/she belives that it has seen all of it.

12. The person thinks that the "trial and error" approach is bad approach in almost all cases.

13. The person is often seen as scary or mystical by its environment.

14. The person often just says his/her judgement and what should be done about event X.

15. The person likes to redefine things and definitions.

16. The person is energized by complexity. (especially if the planning is involved)

17. The person remains self-confidant or at least mostly self-confidant even if there is no obversable reasons to feel like that.

18. The person likes sarcasm.

19. The person has a hard time remembering the strict line of 10 body moves and is gererally clumsy.

20. The person really likes to have the "last laught".

I agree with the bolded ones... but the others are not me.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I agree with the bolded ones... but the others are not me.

Well as I said the list is probably Te biased since my Ni and Te are quite merged and it is hard to make a super clear border between them.
However it looks to me that the only thing you trully don't relate here is so called arrogance of Te.

 

[Nicodemus]

You try to determine someone's type and conclude which functions they must be using. If you type them NJ, you suddenly pick up Ni.

 

[SilkRoad]

This thread has now gone waaaaaay beyond me, folks, but it's very interesting to read. Keep them coming!

 

[Jaguar]

You try to determine someone's type and conclude which functions they must be using. If you type them NJ, you suddenly pick up Ni.

That must be why I "suddenly" picked up Ni in an ISTP last year.

 

[raminda]

No, not really. But we get that you are deeply infatuated in love.

Nice to meet you too

I'd say something rude or sarcastic, but I don't want to be counter-phobik.

 

[Nicodemus]

That must be why I "suddenly" picked up Ni in an ISTP last year.

...

 

[ThatGirl]

I think the "spin" comment might have been an observation after the fact but you are right, I did get an initial impression that he was not being honest in representing himself. I selected his resume - I OKed the interview. However, upon meeting him, I was a bit suspicious off the bat. Something seemed off. He looked 45 years old but according to his resume, he would be in his early 30s. Dates were missing. The combination of skills/words seemed too good to be true. He comes from a culture where I hate to say it, but there is tendency I have noticed having looked at a LOT of resumes, for people to exaggerate their credentials. When he answered questions, he would repeat back the generic words on his resume but refused to go into any detail behind them. There is one question I asked - he provided an obvious rehearsed response to a different question than the one I had asked. I thanked him for a wonderful story/great example but brought it back to the context of the original question and asked him how it related. It didn't. Then I gave him a chance to provide another example which he ultimately did. He kept saying my name (technique used by salesmen) and he kept referring to his "client service" skills (I'm in a client service business). He had a great example about reCaptcha which of course, I asked him to dive into details on. He didn't seem to know anything. This happened at least 5 or 6 times during the interview. I'd be curious and interested about his experience. I'd ask him to tell me more. He couldn't. So, my initial intuition was to probe on his experience. As I began to do that and it wasn't falling into place, I kept going until there was absolutely no doubt that he was 1) exaggerating his skills and experience and/or 2) extremely poor at communicating what he had done.

Funny you mention this. I always think about this.

Most people are assumed to be lying or exaggerating their skills on their resume. So I sometimes wonder if employers expect it. It seems like if you write an honest resume, you don't even get through the door because someone else's read better, even if in all actuality you are better suited for the job.

Lately I have been taking the approach to just say whatever the hell you need to, just to get through the door, then showcase not what you have done but what you are capable of once you get inside.

It is just that if all people are assumed to lie, and you write honestly, wouldn't an employer assume that is also a lie, and by default, underestimate your skills in the margin of error?

So then in order to be a contender you have to play the game, somewhat..

Sorry know that is off topic but I am curious.