4 ms·

This sounds so weird, people without any expertise in human psychology are in-charge of a behavior detection exercise. The worst part, those who got in were the

by neo_g 4y ago

This sounds so weird, people without any expertise in human psychology are in-charge of a behavior detection exercise. The worst part, those who got in were the new experts in 6-months.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
0x0000000 4y ago
> those who got in were the new experts in 6-months. Author says they were shadowing, not an expert.
metadat 4y ago
It's better than no filtration of assholes at all, which is the industry standard. Do you know if a better plan which scales to companies with hundos of thousands of employees?
mrmattyboy 4y ago
I'm not sure it's quite the same as a psychological evaluation ;) I mean, if you had to work in a team with someone.. this sounds like a good way to see how they'd fit in actually working in team under a pressured situation. You're not labelling them as this or that, or necessarily checking for 'hidden indications' that they could have some condition you know nothing about, it's just finding people that fit into the culture that you're looking to fill. I (probably awful) analogy could be, if I go to car boot (garage) sale and find things that are good value (and/or haggle).. I'm not telling the person how much the item's worth, but what price it's worth to me/what I can afford.. I'm not claiming to be a antique evaluator. (Update: Well, I guess I don't _actually_ know they're doing/not doing, but it's my interpretation)
- veltas 4y ago
  Yeah, just this. It's not a psychology experiment, it's "do I want to work with this person?"
Victerius 4y ago
Take this with a pinch of salt, but I read an anecdote on Reddit a long time ago about a corporation in New York (I think it was a bank) where an executive was looking for a new VP/Director/something. He found a potential candidate and invited him to a one-on-one lunch. When the candidate placed his order, the executive discreetly told the waiter to bring the wrong order for the candidate. The point was to see how the candidate would react to unexpected situations. Would the candidate assert himself and demand that his order be corrected? Or would he roll along and adapt to the new situation? Either choice could reveal potential qualities or defaults about the candidate.
- nosianu 4y ago
  No it really does not, or at best barely, if you don't think too much. Brains are highly context dependent in how they work. I doubt a similar baking mistake would get a similar response than a wrong-order mistake in a restaurant. Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn't, but making a prediction from one to the other based on such little evidence... well, the person who gets tested really is the one doing such a test, and it does not look good. Okay, there's an A for effort, at least he tried it at all. I'm sure the very-negative case works, if he freaks out or becomes too obsessed over such a mistake that speaks against the person. But the cases you described sound pretty tame, if he merely asks for the mistake to be corrected that in itself isn't noteworthy. I certainly don't see it as being useful for determining what he would do if there was a similar mistake in the bank business. The context is totally different.
- rzzzt 4y ago
  OK, what qualities did the choices reveal? I can attribute both desireable and undesireable traits to either branch taken.
- vmception 4y ago
  What was the desired outcome? I hate dark patterns in dates, that was a date. Learn to communicate and choose that.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  I mean, if I were in that situation, I'd probably accept it just because the accuracy of my order doesn't really matter compared to the meeting as long as it's edible, it doesn't really say anything about my decision making when it does matter. It's knowing P(A|B) and trying to obtain a P(A|C) where B and C are mostly disjoint, making the info not too useful.
oh_sigh 4y ago
Do you need especial expertise in human psychology to see who is behaving like an asshole in a group?
Closi 4y ago
You don't require a degree in human psychology to evaluate if someone is a team player in a group assessment. I've been assessed during a similar group assessment (we had to work together to produce a layout for a shopping centre), and also been an assesser for one of these excercises. All you are really trying to identify are: 1) The people that won't help others, and will intentionally try to throw other candidates under the bus (so you make sure you never hire them). and 2) The people that do genuinely try to help the other candidates who are struggling (so you can hire them). It's not exactly some sort of highly-complex psychological evaluation, you are just seeing how people work in a group task.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Who's not the team player in this story? The person who stands up and tries to provide some leadership in a situation that has stalled?
  - function_seven 4y ago
    How did they do that? A couple possibilities: 1. "You're all being mired in nonsense. Give me the board, hand me the packets, and I'll show you how it's done." 2. "Okay, let's organize this somehow. I'll make a list of related widgets and gadgets. Becky, can you see if we all have the same dooh-dad structure?" I'd say 1 is an asshole, and 2 is a Team Player™
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      ...but the recollection doesn't differentiate between these two so it doesn't seem to be the important factor?
      - macksd 4y ago
        The recollection doesn't say anything about who else didn't make it. I don't think they included the information you're trying to infer from the story.
- 4y ago
causality0 4y ago
Considering the abysmal state of psychology vis-a-vis the reproducibility crisis, I would trust a random person's instinctive asshole detector more than someone who's been trained not to use it.
darkerside 4y ago
This is fetishizing psychology expertise. Others are allowed to participate. I don't need a PhD in economics to participate in our economy.

by neo_g 4y ago

This sounds so weird, people without any expertise in human psychology are in-charge of a behavior detection exercise. The worst part, those who got in were the new experts in 6-months.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

0x0000000 4y ago

> those who got in were the new experts in 6-months. Author says they were shadowing, not an expert.

metadat 4y ago

It's better than no filtration of assholes at all, which is the industry standard. Do you know if a better plan which scales to companies with hundos of thousands of employees?

mrmattyboy 4y ago

I'm not sure it's quite the same as a psychological evaluation ;) I mean, if you had to work in a team with someone.. this sounds like a good way to see how they'd fit in actually working in team under a pressured situation. You're not labelling them as this or that, or necessarily checking for 'hidden indications' that they could have some condition you know nothing about, it's just finding people that fit into the culture that you're looking to fill. I (probably awful) analogy could be, if I go to car boot (garage) sale and find things that are good value (and/or haggle).. I'm not telling the person how much the item's worth, but what price it's worth to me/what I can afford.. I'm not claiming to be a antique evaluator. (Update: Well, I guess I don't _actually_ know they're doing/not doing, but it's my interpretation)

veltas 4y ago
Yeah, just this. It's not a psychology experiment, it's "do I want to work with this person?"

Victerius 4y ago

Take this with a pinch of salt, but I read an anecdote on Reddit a long time ago about a corporation in New York (I think it was a bank) where an executive was looking for a new VP/Director/something. He found a potential candidate and invited him to a one-on-one lunch. When the candidate placed his order, the executive discreetly told the waiter to bring the wrong order for the candidate. The point was to see how the candidate would react to unexpected situations. Would the candidate assert himself and demand that his order be corrected? Or would he roll along and adapt to the new situation? Either choice could reveal potential qualities or defaults about the candidate.

nosianu 4y ago
No it really does not, or at best barely, if you don't think too much. Brains are highly context dependent in how they work. I doubt a similar baking mistake would get a similar response than a wrong-order mistake in a restaurant. Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn't, but making a prediction from one to the other based on such little evidence... well, the person who gets tested really is the one doing such a test, and it does not look good. Okay, there's an A for effort, at least he tried it at all. I'm sure the very-negative case works, if he freaks out or becomes too obsessed over such a mistake that speaks against the person. But the cases you described sound pretty tame, if he merely asks for the mistake to be corrected that in itself isn't noteworthy. I certainly don't see it as being useful for determining what he would do if there was a similar mistake in the bank business. The context is totally different.
rzzzt 4y ago
OK, what qualities did the choices reveal? I can attribute both desireable and undesireable traits to either branch taken.
vmception 4y ago
What was the desired outcome? I hate dark patterns in dates, that was a date. Learn to communicate and choose that.
dotnet00 4y ago
I mean, if I were in that situation, I'd probably accept it just because the accuracy of my order doesn't really matter compared to the meeting as long as it's edible, it doesn't really say anything about my decision making when it does matter. It's knowing P(A|B) and trying to obtain a P(A|C) where B and C are mostly disjoint, making the info not too useful.

oh_sigh 4y ago

Do you need especial expertise in human psychology to see who is behaving like an asshole in a group?

Closi 4y ago

You don't require a degree in human psychology to evaluate if someone is a team player in a group assessment. I've been assessed during a similar group assessment (we had to work together to produce a layout for a shopping centre), and also been an assesser for one of these excercises. All you are really trying to identify are: 1) The people that won't help others, and will intentionally try to throw other candidates under the bus (so you make sure you never hire them). and 2) The people that do genuinely try to help the other candidates who are struggling (so you can hire them). It's not exactly some sort of highly-complex psychological evaluation, you are just seeing how people work in a group task.

chrisseaton 4y ago
Who's not the team player in this story? The person who stands up and tries to provide some leadership in a situation that has stalled?
- function_seven 4y ago
  How did they do that? A couple possibilities: 1. "You're all being mired in nonsense. Give me the board, hand me the packets, and I'll show you how it's done." 2. "Okay, let's organize this somehow. I'll make a list of related widgets and gadgets. Becky, can you see if we all have the same dooh-dad structure?" I'd say 1 is an asshole, and 2 is a Team Player™
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    ...but the recollection doesn't differentiate between these two so it doesn't seem to be the important factor?
    - macksd 4y ago
      The recollection doesn't say anything about who else didn't make it. I don't think they included the information you're trying to infer from the story.
4y ago

causality0 4y ago

Considering the abysmal state of psychology vis-a-vis the reproducibility crisis, I would trust a random person's instinctive asshole detector more than someone who's been trained not to use it.

darkerside 4y ago

This is fetishizing psychology expertise. Others are allowed to participate. I don't need a PhD in economics to participate in our economy.