The way you beat the test is you envision somebody you know who is just the person they would be looking for, then pretend to yourself that you are that person, and then answer the questions as that person would.
But that’s true of every test (of better quality than those published in Cosmo). I always wish that I could have a post-test interview to first, find out whether the computer’s responses have been re-interpreted by an Actual Human Being, and second, be able to explain stuff which is unusual.
I’ve told you before about my gripe with people who want anybody whose title is “manager” to have a 10 on leadership vs submisiveness and who complain about how hard it is to find middle managers, right?
I applied for a job with CapitalOne about 5 years ago. My wife at the time worked there and had a very good friend in HR. They had me take TWO personality tests. One was one of those tests that feature questions like, “Which is the following words most describes you? a) novice b) apathetic c) diplomatic d) intelligent”. I’m never good at these tests. I figured I’d answer it truthfully – apathetic, baby.
The other was the type described in this thread.
I failed either one of the tests, don’t know which one, because I didn’t get the job. I guess it’s some super-seekrit HR code not to talk about what the tests mean, because my ex couldn’t get the details from her friend on how I failed.
Actually, I think that’s pretty standard. They ask the same question over and over in different ways to see if you’re consistent.
The point is to see if you’re zoned out and just filling in bubbles, or still actually thinking and responding to the test. If you answer consistently on all of those questions, then that’s probably how you really feel. But if you miss one, or they’re all over the place - then either you’re lying, not paying attention, or something else is going on. In any event, cause for disqualification or at least further exploration and inquiry.
At least that’s the way it was explained to me.
I would think that feeling more powerful while carrying a gun would be a normal feeling. Now, of course, the answer to this question alone couldn’t possibly predict the potential for abuse of power. If I was asked the question, and I wanted to be honest, I would have to say “yes.” I am not a gun enthusiast, but I have shot at a shooting range and I can honestly say, knowing the power of such a weapon, I would appreciate the advantage I would have over an unarmed person. (again, not from an abuse of power standpoint)
That’s a really sad outlook. As I mentioned in the post before, I would absolutely look to see if anyone was searching for it, and would hope you would do the same if it was my $50 bill you found.
Ehm - do you have much experience with HR departments? In my experience, their main focus is to dwindle down the number of applicants/applications by any means possible. Personality tests and the insistence on grammatically flawless resumes & cover letters is one way of achieving this. Relevance to job performance is would of course be nice, but you can’t have everything.
If a quick spell check and a 100-question computer-graded personality test can reduce the field of applicants from 100 to 10, why, that’s 90% of the job done right there.
It has the added benefit of not requiring any understanding of the requirements for the position, nor of the candidates’ qualifications - which seems to be the way HR departments prefer it.
(No, I don’t think highly of (most) HR departments. Why do you ask?)
We don’t disagree. My emphasis is that I’m amazed that a) they think they’re being clever; and b) in some cases, they think it’s not a problem to ask questions that are illegal.
There may be a question on the test that asks, “Have you ever stolen money from your employer?” followed by a question that asks, “Have you ever thought of stealing from your employer?”
As I understand it, the 1st will measure whether or not you’re a thief while the 2nd will measure how truthful you are, the thinking being, that thoughts of larceny are part of human nature.
I wasn’t given the opportunity to discuss the test with the psychologist afterwards, but I answered the question “yes” (it makes me feel more powerful) and “passed.” Note that it was some years ago and the wording may have been slightly different, but the essence is that any honest person would say “of course!”
Another question in a similar vein as Ferd Berful was “have you ever stolen anything from an employer?”, except this was on a polygraph. Again, if you’ve been in the workplace at all, the honest answer for most people is “yes” (pens, paper, grails, whatever).
Q. Do you feel like you have to drink?
A. Why no, I don’t drink because I have to, I drink to quiet the voices in my head. And if you knew what they were saying, you wouldn’t want me to listen to them.
oh god, I fucking hate those things.
I had one ask me if I’d rather be a school bus driver or a music teacher.
BWUH???
But even that is bullshit. None of these questions allow for any qualifiers. Have I ever thought of stealing from my employer? What does that mean? Has the though ever crossed my mind? Sure. Have I ever considered it even remotely seriously? No. How should I answer that?
And the stupid stair thing–usually I take stairs one at a time. If they’re shallow or I’m in a hurry or something, I might take two at a time.
They would be better off just getting a sane human to conduct a five minute interview as an initial screening for psychos and liars than this crap.
I know just enough about firearms to know that I don’t know enough about them to handle one safely. I’ve held and fired them occasionally (shotguns and small-caliber revolvers in target situations), but not frequently, and not in what I’d call educational situations. My honest answer to this particular question would be, “Carrying a gun would make me nervous more than anything.”
Guess I don’t get the job. :rolleyes:
As I stated in my post, which was my opinion, it would most likely be considered normal to feel powerful. I did not state that everyone should or would feel powerful while carrying a firearm. I also stated, if you reread my post, that the gun=power question *alone * couldn’t possibly predict whether or not the applicant is going to abuse power. Clearly there are other factors involved.
Sorry, I was neither snarking nor :rolleyes:-ing at you in particular. I was snarking at the implicit assumptions of the question, and of this kind of test. I just chose your post as the jumping-off point. Apologies for inadvertent confusion.
In college, once, I found a $20 bill lying in the middle of campus. I could really use the money then. I took it to lost-and-found and left it there, filling out a report in case it wasn’t claimed by anyone (at which point I could have claimed it myself). Then I went back to the spot, put a piece of green paper where I’d found the bill, and wrote on it, “Lose something here? Check Lost and Found!”
Of course, I was too lazy-ass ever to check back w/ L&F to see if anyone had claimed it.
ETA: As for the gun thing, if i were proficient in using guns, it’d definitely make me feel more powerful to carry one. And if I weren’t, I definitely wouldn’t be applying for a job as a cop in the US!
Daniel
I used to work for the Loews theatre chain. The HR department required a personality test that if the applicant failed we couldn’t hire them, no matter what. Basically HR didn’t trust the theatre managers with the decision making process in hiring.
Also they paid big money I’m sure to some company to get the test and to score it for us, so since they spent that money, they had be justified in spending it.
Only because there is no real interpretive criteria at all for the Rorshach. There are typical responses and atypical repsonses to the test. There can be obviously dark or violent responses which you don’t need to be a psychologist to spot (and a lot of times the subject may be just trying to fuck with the tester), there may be patterns like tendencies to see sexual organs or dismembered body parts or something but the evaluation of the tests is not based on any codified standard but the subjective interpretation of the tester. It’s like dream interpretation – it’s mostly just pulled from the ass of the psychologist. There is no real empirical basis for it.
Here’s a good link for thse who might be interested in seeing the actual blots and finding out what the typical responses are. A lot of psychologists get bent out of shape when Rorshach info is shared publicly, but there’s nothing illegal or unethical about it and since it’s all quackery anyway, I don’t have any qualms about sharing this link.
No harm, no foul. I do agree with your opinion of these types of tests. Unless someone is a stark raving lunatic, I don’t see how these tests could truly be a snapshot of a person’s moral character or work ethic.