3 ms·
I assumed that's the point - can you see things like a "normal" person does?
by nerdbert 3y ago
I assumed that's the point - can you see things like a "normal" person does?
- datavirtue 3y agoThis guy gets it.
- nitwit005 3y agoThese tests usually don't have a "normal" outcome, as they are intended to group people into categories.
- kqr 3y agoNormal was a bad choice of words. "How well are you able to empathise with the organisation" might be a better phrasing.
- red-iron-pine 3y agohow well are you able to guess what the test wants you to say, and game the system? i remember doing these like 20 years ago when i got out out of the military and just needed a bartending job. corp chain, had you take a bunch like "if I see an employee slacking off I'm 1) very offended, 2) slightly offended, 3) indifferent, 4) okay with it, or 5) very okay with it it was obvious what answer they wanted, and empathy had nothing to do with it
- numpad0 3y agochaotic evil is a category.
- mewpmewp2 3y agoSo the goal is to avoid anyone on spectrum?
- lazide 3y agoThe goal is to get the answers they want without saying it. They want people who will naturally know ‘the right thing’ to do to get paid by them, without them having to say it. Folks on a spectrum are usually that way because they’re bad at already knowing that - or unwilling/unable to say it naturally. For various reasons. Which is why the spectrum covers ‘disorders’ (aka things that make life suck sometimes/most of the time) instead of ‘awesomenesses’. That said, there are advantages and utility where one can find niches and ways to adapt most of the time. Being the same/reacting the same as everyone else, tends to get you the same results as everyone else. For better or worse. Mixing in with the herd offers a lot of protection, as long as the whole herd isn’t being stampeded off a cliff by a smarter adversary. You’re unlikely to starve either, but you’d better be good at eating grass other people have already crapped on/next to.