5 ms·

>If you only get canned questions >If they give you an IQ test or similar, run. I ran across this study a few months ago that says IQ-like tests, structured i

by jotux 11y ago

>If you only get canned questions >If they give you an IQ test or similar, run. I ran across this study a few months ago that says IQ-like tests, structured interviews (canned questions), and work-sample evaluations were some of the few useful interview tools for selecting good employees [1]. [1]. http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...

jraines 11y ago
Curious about OP's assertion on this as well. Only one I ever got was from a company widely regarded as one of the best to work for in Atlanta (I ended up not taking their offer so I can't say). Unrelated to that -- one of my personal red flags is poor handling of the post interview follow up. If a company drags their feet, gives conflicting signals about next steps, etc., they probably are a mess.
- sobbybutter 11y ago
  Which company?
  - hueving 11y ago
    Coca Cola: That recipe must be protected by state of the art custom techonology
- bpchaps 11y ago
  It's akin to needlessly using technology to solving a problem or requiring someone to write a hugely time consuming code sample. Sure, theoretically it's a great idea, but since they're never done right and they never address the issues that affect the fringe. The worst I've seen was where I had to do 100 questions and half were spatial intelligence (gameable and wtf). It looked like an incredibly expensive piece of software. Didn't get the job, thankfully, but the company's now known for having a policy of not being able to talk about work out loud if you're in IT. The other places that gave me tests had dissimilar, but equally insane workplace policies. Rambling list: -At some level, the person interviewing you (or management) doesn't trust their intuition to find the right candidate. -It's an easy way to throw someone out of a pool despite all else. There's a reason it's illegal to do IQ tests. -Mental health issues such as dyslexia or ADD. -I've taken maybe five intelligence tests for work and none of them have been the same. Where's the standard? -Companies have a weird tendency to use puzzles such as the "three light bulbs" one. All that does is test if you've heard it before. "I want to see how you think" makes no sense when the question's on paper and there's 100 questions just like it. -A lot of these tests are gameable since you can just practice beforehand. -Test anxiety sucks.
- pfooti 11y ago
  Speaking as someone with a cognitive science background (and yes, probably too lazy to dig up specific references), I'll say that there exist a lot of poorly designed or poorly implemented tests of "intelligence". Even the concept of intelligence is poorly defined, and lots of different measures are just proxies. Even if the test is good and has some psychometric utility, often giving the test is a giant pain to do well. Even if the test is good, it's probably calibrated on WEIRD [0] subjects, so is really only good as another kind of gatekeeper - you can probably use old-school IQ tests as an excuse to reduce diversity. People who aren't WEIRD may not do as well on these tests (even though they're just as "intelligent" (parenthetically bracketing the ill-defined term for a moment)), so you have your reason that you only hire white dudes. But that's a cynical extension of logic there. Most people, when approaching a psychometric test like one of intelligence or personality make the first incorrect assumption that modern cognitive science can actually form a construct like "personality type" or "intelligence" that's stable across all cultures and norms, testable, and repeatable. That's just not really true, and by and large what makes it to public consumption is pseudo-science. Diverting just a little bit here, but MBTI [1] is another good example of bad use of psychometrics in business. There's about as much science supporting Myers-Briggs tests as there is astrology, yet people still use MBTI for actual decision making. Types aren't shown to be stable and they're not well-clustered (meaning you can be a mix of introvert and extrovert, or show signs of both depending on the day, context, mood). Zodiac Sign and MBTI Type should only be used as pick-up lines in a bar. "Hey, babe, I'm an INTJ, so I'm not going to say anything else." There are good uses of psychometrics, but they're rare enough that I take any reliance on any kind of psychometric during hiring as kind of a bad sign. 0: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-weird-evolution-of-human-psychology/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-weir... 1: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/go...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - microcolonel 11y ago
    I find the "WEIRD" thing a bit tough to support, at least with regard to IQ. East Asian populations (Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan right at the top) seem to consistently score higher on IQ tests than "WEIRD"os. Maybe the less pathetic and self-hating way to look at it would be "EIR" populations. Even then, it's hard to argue that spatial and linguistic reasoning are not universal values; even if you're uncomfortable that some populations have lower averages than others. I feel as though this must come from a lack of respect for the obvious personal value of Education, Industrialization, and Riches.
plaguuuuuu 11y ago
>I ran across this study a few months ago that says IQ-like tests, structured interviews (canned questions), and work-sample evaluations were some of the few useful interview tools for selecting good employees [1]. They're great for determining which employees will be productive They're entirely terrible for figuring out which employees will be decent people to spend 9-5, 5 days a week with. Realistically you need a bit of both
- inopinatus 11y ago
  I've found that well-designed (i.e. open ended) standardised questions help normalise comparison between candidates. Especially helpful if you have many candidates in a pipeline and/or a pool of interviewers that compare notes. Work samples are my #1 competence filter. They've also formed the basis of great interviews. As for your second point, sometimes you want to hire a change agent. It takes skill and practice to distinguish toxic personalities from the merely disruptive. Again, standard questions designed from a perspective of empathy and experience have helped me.
ap22213 11y ago
An above average IQ is usually good, but not too high. 115-120 seems pretty good. Above that, I've found a strong correlation with either a) being a dick, b) having obnoxious social quirks, or c) being dangerously over-confident. YMMV
- thesz 11y ago
  "In their communication with me all these people have been civilized and polite, without weirdness or negativity. All in all the top scorers seem to confirm what has slowly been dawning to me over the past years: that, within the high range of intelligence, higher I.Q.s tend to come with a greater likelihood of being psychiatrically and socially normal." http://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/statistics/iq170.html http://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/statistics/iq170.html Also, please read about IQ and rational thinking: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrat...
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
IQ tests are useless. I got a printout from one that says I have an IQ of 130, after I was sent a link to do the IQ test at home. Obviously, I called my flatmate and we did it together. We spent most of the time of the test taking the piss, else we'd have hit 200 or so. The company who gave me the test offered me the job after a very brief interview, in which they said the test was not important. It was very clear from their behaviour that they thought it really, really was (important) and they were about to hire some sort of genius. I ran. I'm still running. In my current position, at Big Financial Corp, I had to take an "aptitude test". There were three parts of it: literacy, numeracy, logic in that order. I suck at arithmetic so after the literacy bit I wanted to get straight to the cool and fun logic puzzles at the end, but the time we were given was like a third of the time the test was meant to take (allegedly, they wanted to see how well we perform under pressure) and I wouldn't have the time to do all three parts equally well. So I thought, screw it, I'll approximate. I clicked through the numeracy test mostly at random (I concentrated clicks on the first three options), hoping to get a 50/50 score and dove right into the logic test at the end. I had great fun and I got hired after all so it can't have been that bad. They haven't told me how well I did because they don't like to um, foster antagonism. Or something. Point being: IQ tests are stupid. You don't need to have a high enough IQ to pass them. You just need to be smart enough to beat the test. So, useless.
tamana 11y ago
HN user tokenadult has a canned comment about this that they reposted for YEARS on this site.
bduerst 11y ago
Anecdotal: My first job out of college had an IQ test (along with other interviews, tests, and a presentation), and it was a great job.

by jotux 11y ago

jraines 11y ago

Curious about OP's assertion on this as well. Only one I ever got was from a company widely regarded as one of the best to work for in Atlanta (I ended up not taking their offer so I can't say). Unrelated to that -- one of my personal red flags is poor handling of the post interview follow up. If a company drags their feet, gives conflicting signals about next steps, etc., they probably are a mess.

sobbybutter 11y ago
Which company?
- hueving 11y ago
  Coca Cola: That recipe must be protected by state of the art custom techonology
bpchaps 11y ago
It's akin to needlessly using technology to solving a problem or requiring someone to write a hugely time consuming code sample. Sure, theoretically it's a great idea, but since they're never done right and they never address the issues that affect the fringe. The worst I've seen was where I had to do 100 questions and half were spatial intelligence (gameable and wtf). It looked like an incredibly expensive piece of software. Didn't get the job, thankfully, but the company's now known for having a policy of not being able to talk about work out loud if you're in IT. The other places that gave me tests had dissimilar, but equally insane workplace policies. Rambling list: -At some level, the person interviewing you (or management) doesn't trust their intuition to find the right candidate. -It's an easy way to throw someone out of a pool despite all else. There's a reason it's illegal to do IQ tests. -Mental health issues such as dyslexia or ADD. -I've taken maybe five intelligence tests for work and none of them have been the same. Where's the standard? -Companies have a weird tendency to use puzzles such as the "three light bulbs" one. All that does is test if you've heard it before. "I want to see how you think" makes no sense when the question's on paper and there's 100 questions just like it. -A lot of these tests are gameable since you can just practice beforehand. -Test anxiety sucks.
pfooti 11y ago
Speaking as someone with a cognitive science background (and yes, probably too lazy to dig up specific references), I'll say that there exist a lot of poorly designed or poorly implemented tests of "intelligence". Even the concept of intelligence is poorly defined, and lots of different measures are just proxies. Even if the test is good and has some psychometric utility, often giving the test is a giant pain to do well. Even if the test is good, it's probably calibrated on WEIRD [0] subjects, so is really only good as another kind of gatekeeper - you can probably use old-school IQ tests as an excuse to reduce diversity. People who aren't WEIRD may not do as well on these tests (even though they're just as "intelligent" (parenthetically bracketing the ill-defined term for a moment)), so you have your reason that you only hire white dudes. But that's a cynical extension of logic there. Most people, when approaching a psychometric test like one of intelligence or personality make the first incorrect assumption that modern cognitive science can actually form a construct like "personality type" or "intelligence" that's stable across all cultures and norms, testable, and repeatable. That's just not really true, and by and large what makes it to public consumption is pseudo-science. Diverting just a little bit here, but MBTI [1] is another good example of bad use of psychometrics in business. There's about as much science supporting Myers-Briggs tests as there is astrology, yet people still use MBTI for actual decision making. Types aren't shown to be stable and they're not well-clustered (meaning you can be a mix of introvert and extrovert, or show signs of both depending on the day, context, mood). Zodiac Sign and MBTI Type should only be used as pick-up lines in a bar. "Hey, babe, I'm an INTJ, so I'm not going to say anything else." There are good uses of psychometrics, but they're rare enough that I take any reliance on any kind of psychometric during hiring as kind of a bad sign. 0: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-weird-evolution-of-human-psychology/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-weir... 1: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/go...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- microcolonel 11y ago
  I find the "WEIRD" thing a bit tough to support, at least with regard to IQ. East Asian populations (Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan right at the top) seem to consistently score higher on IQ tests than "WEIRD"os. Maybe the less pathetic and self-hating way to look at it would be "EIR" populations. Even then, it's hard to argue that spatial and linguistic reasoning are not universal values; even if you're uncomfortable that some populations have lower averages than others. I feel as though this must come from a lack of respect for the obvious personal value of Education, Industrialization, and Riches.

plaguuuuuu 11y ago

>I ran across this study a few months ago that says IQ-like tests, structured interviews (canned questions), and work-sample evaluations were some of the few useful interview tools for selecting good employees [1]. They're great for determining which employees will be productive They're entirely terrible for figuring out which employees will be decent people to spend 9-5, 5 days a week with. Realistically you need a bit of both

inopinatus 11y ago
I've found that well-designed (i.e. open ended) standardised questions help normalise comparison between candidates. Especially helpful if you have many candidates in a pipeline and/or a pool of interviewers that compare notes. Work samples are my #1 competence filter. They've also formed the basis of great interviews. As for your second point, sometimes you want to hire a change agent. It takes skill and practice to distinguish toxic personalities from the merely disruptive. Again, standard questions designed from a perspective of empathy and experience have helped me.

ap22213 11y ago

An above average IQ is usually good, but not too high. 115-120 seems pretty good. Above that, I've found a strong correlation with either a) being a dick, b) having obnoxious social quirks, or c) being dangerously over-confident. YMMV

thesz 11y ago
"In their communication with me all these people have been civilized and polite, without weirdness or negativity. All in all the top scorers seem to confirm what has slowly been dawning to me over the past years: that, within the high range of intelligence, higher I.Q.s tend to come with a greater likelihood of being psychiatrically and socially normal." http://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/statistics/iq170.html http://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/statistics/iq170.html Also, please read about IQ and rational thinking: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrat...

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

IQ tests are useless. I got a printout from one that says I have an IQ of 130, after I was sent a link to do the IQ test at home. Obviously, I called my flatmate and we did it together. We spent most of the time of the test taking the piss, else we'd have hit 200 or so. The company who gave me the test offered me the job after a very brief interview, in which they said the test was not important. It was very clear from their behaviour that they thought it really, really was (important) and they were about to hire some sort of genius. I ran. I'm still running. In my current position, at Big Financial Corp, I had to take an "aptitude test". There were three parts of it: literacy, numeracy, logic in that order. I suck at arithmetic so after the literacy bit I wanted to get straight to the cool and fun logic puzzles at the end, but the time we were given was like a third of the time the test was meant to take (allegedly, they wanted to see how well we perform under pressure) and I wouldn't have the time to do all three parts equally well. So I thought, screw it, I'll approximate. I clicked through the numeracy test mostly at random (I concentrated clicks on the first three options), hoping to get a 50/50 score and dove right into the logic test at the end. I had great fun and I got hired after all so it can't have been that bad. They haven't told me how well I did because they don't like to um, foster antagonism. Or something. Point being: IQ tests are stupid. You don't need to have a high enough IQ to pass them. You just need to be smart enough to beat the test. So, useless.

tamana 11y ago

HN user tokenadult has a canned comment about this that they reposted for YEARS on this site.

bduerst 11y ago

Anecdotal: My first job out of college had an IQ test (along with other interviews, tests, and a presentation), and it was a great job.