2 ms·

> If you are asking about my psychometric profile, I scored 94 on the test we use. So you're confirming that these "psychometric profiles" can be summarized as

> If you are asking about my psychometric profile, I scored 94 on the test we use. So you're confirming that these "psychometric profiles" can be summarized as a number. Which means it's very easy to automatically apply a filter (reject any candidate with a score lower than 80), and even if there is no automated filter in place, you understand that people with access to this number will immediately be biased because of it? ("I have to review this candidate, but he fared 70 at the psychometric test, where every other candidate fared 90 or more...", and then obviously, during the interview, and after, the reviewer will be biased by that number.)

markshuttle 4y ago
Yes, data shapes decisions. Should that not be the case? A hiring lead is expected to find the best candidates, not just the ones with a higher number on a simplistic test. Your point is correct that a hiring lead with bad judgement or low engagement might get a bad result, but what hiring process cannot be undermined in that way? When you don't like something, it's common to mischaracterize it with anecdotes of stupidity, then say it must be stupid. The argument is basically "a biased and obnoxious hiring manager could misuse that data to make biased and stupid hiring decisions". Yeeeeeees. Obviously. The psychometric test we use is a series of numbers covering different aspects; it's simplistic, but not as simplistic as I reflected with a single number. Hiring leads often progress a candidate that didn't ace that test because they see evidence of excellence in other data. And I often reject offers to candidates who aced that test because I think the result doesn't gel with reality, although I will usually interview a candidate if I have concerns about an offer.