7 ms·

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

by 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.

by jraines 11y ago

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.