6 ms·

Aside from personal experience, can you point to any data on this, and maybe go into some more detail? When I think of personality tests, I think of quack scie

Aside from personal experience, can you point to any data on this, and maybe go into some more detail? When I think of personality tests, I think of quack science. "Do you get angry a lot?", "Is it easy for you to get angry?", "Would you say it is difficult to make you angry?, and four other similar questions in a 200 question quiz. They ask the same thing multiple ways to try to know if you are an person categorizable as x, y, and/or z, and anyone sensible will put the socially desired response. An interesting take on this is CultureAmp's surveys, where they determine your working style and can rate how well you might work with different colleagues. I work great with someone I scored a 98 with. Turns out I also work great with a person I scored a 4 with. So, while fun, it seems all bunk.

austincheney 8y ago
I have only seen this in practice once at a little hedge fund called Bridgewater. It sounds like you are making assumptions of what you think the testing is without any frame of reference. Also, anger is an emotion opposed to a personality designation.
- sethammons 8y ago
  ok, and? We've also seen "how many pingpong balls can fill a school bus" from the likes of Google. They eventually learned it was not a good filter. If a personality test truly is better, I want to know because I'm involved with hiring at my company. What qualifies Bridgewater's take on this? How have they leveraged it and to what effect? Correlation, causation, all that jazz too - if I want to be taller, I should obviously play basketball. [edit] you edited your response as I posted mine :) Yes, I'm assuming what a personality test is because you've given us very little to go on. Give us more. Honestly, if it is better, I'm sure others want more than "this practice is good." We want to know how, what, and why.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    > If a personality test truly is better, I want to know because I'm involved with hiring at my company. Then I recommend getting in contact with a behavioral health professional. > What qualifies Bridgewater's take on this? Their success and retention. When I went through the Bridgewater process there were about 6 different personally tests I took. Some were more precise than others. I measured a 96% objectivity score which is a statistical anomaly. I ultimately dropped out as I found a less risky position in my local metro far away from the east coast.
    - sethammons 8y ago
      There are companies with practically zero attrition rates and are successful; lots of companies can claim what you are claiming. Again, what you are saying is the same as "if I want to be taller, I should play basketball."
      - austincheney 8y ago
        Then you should gather your own data and independently draw your own conclusions. In my experience selective bias cannot be avoided unless you remove humans from the initial selection process. It is also my experience that potential in a given field is a predictable quality not discerned from resumes.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
By the 5th time you see the question, you're fuming so you shout, "YES! I ANGER EASILY!!!!" Ahem... Sorry. I worked at a place that was bought out and the new team immediately made everyone take a battery of these style tests. A few days later they did a mass firing based on the results. I survived long enough to find work elsewhere.
- adetrest 8y ago
  Firing based on test results sounds illegal. Same reason why employers can't give iq tests to candidates anymore IIRC.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    Fair point. It happened after the tests, but I've no way of knowing if it was because. Just seems suspect.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    I assume that you're in USA as you don't say, what law prohibits it? Any insight on the rationale? Presumably it is not illegal to require a particular educational level or particular certificate pass which are likely to be close proxies for an "IQ" test result?
    - adetrest 8y ago
      Not in the US myself, but this is a US discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3772897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3772897 While technically not always illegal, giving an IQ test is a minefield for HR and that's why almost everyone avoids it. It all boils down to whether it is required for the job or not, and whether it would discriminate against someone who could otherwise do the job but fail the test.
gaius 8y ago
That’s my secret: I’m always angry

austincheney 8y ago

I have only seen this in practice once at a little hedge fund called Bridgewater. It sounds like you are making assumptions of what you think the testing is without any frame of reference. Also, anger is an emotion opposed to a personality designation.

sethammons 8y ago
ok, and? We've also seen "how many pingpong balls can fill a school bus" from the likes of Google. They eventually learned it was not a good filter. If a personality test truly is better, I want to know because I'm involved with hiring at my company. What qualifies Bridgewater's take on this? How have they leveraged it and to what effect? Correlation, causation, all that jazz too - if I want to be taller, I should obviously play basketball. [edit] you edited your response as I posted mine :) Yes, I'm assuming what a personality test is because you've given us very little to go on. Give us more. Honestly, if it is better, I'm sure others want more than "this practice is good." We want to know how, what, and why.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > If a personality test truly is better, I want to know because I'm involved with hiring at my company. Then I recommend getting in contact with a behavioral health professional. > What qualifies Bridgewater's take on this? Their success and retention. When I went through the Bridgewater process there were about 6 different personally tests I took. Some were more precise than others. I measured a 96% objectivity score which is a statistical anomaly. I ultimately dropped out as I found a less risky position in my local metro far away from the east coast.
  - sethammons 8y ago
    There are companies with practically zero attrition rates and are successful; lots of companies can claim what you are claiming. Again, what you are saying is the same as "if I want to be taller, I should play basketball."
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Then you should gather your own data and independently draw your own conclusions. In my experience selective bias cannot be avoided unless you remove humans from the initial selection process. It is also my experience that potential in a given field is a predictable quality not discerned from resumes.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

By the 5th time you see the question, you're fuming so you shout, "YES! I ANGER EASILY!!!!" Ahem... Sorry. I worked at a place that was bought out and the new team immediately made everyone take a battery of these style tests. A few days later they did a mass firing based on the results. I survived long enough to find work elsewhere.

adetrest 8y ago
Firing based on test results sounds illegal. Same reason why employers can't give iq tests to candidates anymore IIRC.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Fair point. It happened after the tests, but I've no way of knowing if it was because. Just seems suspect.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  I assume that you're in USA as you don't say, what law prohibits it? Any insight on the rationale? Presumably it is not illegal to require a particular educational level or particular certificate pass which are likely to be close proxies for an "IQ" test result?
  - adetrest 8y ago
    Not in the US myself, but this is a US discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3772897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3772897 While technically not always illegal, giving an IQ test is a minefield for HR and that's why almost everyone avoids it. It all boils down to whether it is required for the job or not, and whether it would discriminate against someone who could otherwise do the job but fail the test.

gaius 8y ago

That’s my secret: I’m always angry