Knowledge Disappears

If simulated experiences cause reality to disappear in a hyperreal universe, then what happens to situations such as job interviews which are, in many ways, simulated real experiences set up to gauge a sense of the real in terms of the character of a person? There is no real in these situations, interviewees are only presenting a limited fictional construction of themselves, missing out any points that they believe the interviewer does not want to hear. The interviewer is playing a role with a predetermined script (like a character in a play). The notion, that spontaneous reaction to scripted questions can reveal some sort of reality about the candidate is misguided. Not only does reality itself disappear within this simulation but all the interviewer is testing is a candidate's ability to improvise answers to particular questions. Granted, this improvisation will be rooted in the knowledge and understanding of the individual and therefore could test previously learned knowledge if the correct answers are posited. Of course then we get into pub quiz territory, where, to some extent, it is the luck of the draw, as to which questions get asked. The script essentially determines the candidate at the writing stage not at the interview stage. This means that the interviewer who creates the script (with their perception of what is important in relation to a specific position) is basically choosing the candidate who is most like themselves. Of course, this then removes any ability to create a "team" whose skills complement one another. So how does one respond to this problem? Does one pick the candidate who can't answer the questions that you pose? As a candidate, what approach can you take to maximise your employability. In my eyes, a good interviewer should ask you what music, literature and films that you like and then take you out drinking to see what happens to your personality after 6 pints of ale.

Of course, job interviews are not the only scenario where individuals construct simulations as a means of trying to find things out.Most scientific studies in some way involve simulation. Surely the whole fact that a situation is created as a means to study something, removes the reality of what is being studied? What then, does this mean about the results which are produced by this process. Statistics, themselves are manipulated by mathematical equations to transform raw data into a value that is a simulation of the raw data and therefore can be gauged against a specific theoretical model (another simulation)to gauge whether a perceived pattern is "real" or "imagined". I'm mean, I'm no philosopher of mathematics and I could have got this completely wrong but from my (admittedly limited) point of view I can't see any holes in this reasoning. Where does this leave knowledge as a whole?