5 ms·

Actually, spotting and weeding out sociopaths is one of the points. I know that you may believe that you're a good judge of character, but actually a smart soci

Actually, spotting and weeding out sociopaths is one of the points. I know that you may believe that you're a good judge of character, but actually a smart sociopath (not the norm, btw) is likely to be able to game you just as easily as the test.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Well, my main objection is to hiring people on the basis of their character, whether it's with a test or not. Assess for whether or not the person can do the job and make you a profit.
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  If one's character meaningfully predicts job performance on top of whatever other methods you are using, then assessing on their character is the same as assessing on whether or not they can do they job (or at least, how well they can do it). Integrity tests have demonstrated this in many contexts, even taking into account the possibility of faking.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Except that obviously wasn't the case in the linked article.
- karlkatzke 13y ago
  Can you spot the person who interviews well, but is a skilled sociopath who will destroy the morale of your team, causing other skilled talent to leave? That's the value of these tests (when properly applied): They allow an evaluator to make statistically accurate predictions of specific types of behavior. The key is the two words: statistically and specific. A single composite score will not tell you anything, but the idea that there's a 68% chance that the person you're about to hire is a schizophrenic kleptomaniac should give you pause.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    > the idea that there's a 68% chance that the person you're about to hire is a schizophrenic kleptomaniac should give you pause. I don't believe in employment discrimination on the basis of mental illness. After all, John Nash was schizophrenic.
  - batguano 13y ago
    > there's a 68% chance that the person you're about to hire is a schizophrenic kleptomaniac Sorry, I don't believe "psychometric tests" can do that either. At least not at the level that we're talking about: distinguishing an otherwise qualified person from someone who's got some sort of psychopathology.
    - karlkatzke 13y ago
      Then you didn't read the other replies in the original thread from actual research psychologists. They described the process and posted links to peer reviewed academic papers. Your baseless disbelief is equivalent to disavowing climate change or vaccines.
  - UK-Al05 13y ago
    You can't catch psychopaths using tests like these. The whole point of being a psychopaths is that you can change the perception of your personality at will. So what your letting in is a subgroup of people who pass, and psychopaths.
    - theorique 13y ago
      That isn't actually what psychopathy means.
      - UK-Al05 13y ago
        It's not what it means, but it is something they are capable of. They can be charming, and they can be horrible. They decide what they are going to be like, to fit into an overall selfish strategy. If being shy is an advantage, they will become that. If being confident is advantage, they will become that. They can gain your trust, then flip when it is an advantage to do so. In these tests, they know what to say, what to do, to give a certain impression. These tests can't catch them, because they are not honest, and lack integrity(No consistent values, only ones that benefit them).
ballard 13y ago
There are three buckets of people you don't want to hire: - helpless - depressed - jerks In my subjective experience: The top one has about %50 shot of being a character flaw, eg, no amount of confidence-building will help. The middle one has the most hope, if the talent potential is significant. The best in the field can be painfully shy as well as depressed. The problem is that depression (not shyness) hurts morale. [1] The last has a %75 chance of being a lost cause. Impossible to manage as they are incredibly disruptive to morale and productivity. [2] Their survival is often linked to mastery of politics, which inculcates their position. [1] http://m.fastcoexist.com/1679208/a-sad-worker-is-a-bad-worker-data-shows-companies-should-help-depressed-employees http://m.fastcoexist.com/1679208/a-sad-worker-is-a-bad-worke... [2] The No *sshole Rule by Robert Sutton
- gaving 13y ago
  - people that put their percentage symbols in the wrong place
  - illumen 13y ago
    - People who capitalise their sentences. ps. lol
    - theorique 13y ago
      - People who spell 'capitalize' as 'capitalise' pps. lolol
      - James_Duval 13y ago
        - the colonies
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Your buckets are quite simplistic and I doubt your company will be successful. First, if this is the states, you are not allowed to discriminate against clinical depression, so (2) will just lead to a lawsuit eventually. As for (1), if they have the skills are they helpless? Jerks are quite deplorable, but its a gradient right? How much jerkiness do you tolerate, or do you want saints?
dwd 13y ago
In the case of the military it can be the opposite: they weed out applicants who they are not confident will pull the trigger every time they are asked to.
- Filligree 13y ago
  Well, they try. I don't remember where I got the number, but apparently something like two-thirds of the regular army still end up unwilling/unable to aim properly when a combat situation actually happens. That's from the Great War, though; procedures may have gotten better since.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

Well, my main objection is to hiring people on the basis of their character, whether it's with a test or not. Assess for whether or not the person can do the job and make you a profit.

HelloMcFly 13y ago
If one's character meaningfully predicts job performance on top of whatever other methods you are using, then assessing on their character is the same as assessing on whether or not they can do they job (or at least, how well they can do it). Integrity tests have demonstrated this in many contexts, even taking into account the possibility of faking.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Except that obviously wasn't the case in the linked article.
karlkatzke 13y ago
Can you spot the person who interviews well, but is a skilled sociopath who will destroy the morale of your team, causing other skilled talent to leave? That's the value of these tests (when properly applied): They allow an evaluator to make statistically accurate predictions of specific types of behavior. The key is the two words: statistically and specific. A single composite score will not tell you anything, but the idea that there's a 68% chance that the person you're about to hire is a schizophrenic kleptomaniac should give you pause.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  > the idea that there's a 68% chance that the person you're about to hire is a schizophrenic kleptomaniac should give you pause. I don't believe in employment discrimination on the basis of mental illness. After all, John Nash was schizophrenic.
- batguano 13y ago
  > there's a 68% chance that the person you're about to hire is a schizophrenic kleptomaniac Sorry, I don't believe "psychometric tests" can do that either. At least not at the level that we're talking about: distinguishing an otherwise qualified person from someone who's got some sort of psychopathology.
  - karlkatzke 13y ago
    Then you didn't read the other replies in the original thread from actual research psychologists. They described the process and posted links to peer reviewed academic papers. Your baseless disbelief is equivalent to disavowing climate change or vaccines.
- UK-Al05 13y ago
  You can't catch psychopaths using tests like these. The whole point of being a psychopaths is that you can change the perception of your personality at will. So what your letting in is a subgroup of people who pass, and psychopaths.
  - theorique 13y ago
    That isn't actually what psychopathy means.
    - UK-Al05 13y ago
      It's not what it means, but it is something they are capable of. They can be charming, and they can be horrible. They decide what they are going to be like, to fit into an overall selfish strategy. If being shy is an advantage, they will become that. If being confident is advantage, they will become that. They can gain your trust, then flip when it is an advantage to do so. In these tests, they know what to say, what to do, to give a certain impression. These tests can't catch them, because they are not honest, and lack integrity(No consistent values, only ones that benefit them).

ballard 13y ago

There are three buckets of people you don't want to hire: - helpless - depressed - jerks In my subjective experience: The top one has about %50 shot of being a character flaw, eg, no amount of confidence-building will help. The middle one has the most hope, if the talent potential is significant. The best in the field can be painfully shy as well as depressed. The problem is that depression (not shyness) hurts morale. [1] The last has a %75 chance of being a lost cause. Impossible to manage as they are incredibly disruptive to morale and productivity. [2] Their survival is often linked to mastery of politics, which inculcates their position. [1] http://m.fastcoexist.com/1679208/a-sad-worker-is-a-bad-worker-data-shows-companies-should-help-depressed-employees http://m.fastcoexist.com/1679208/a-sad-worker-is-a-bad-worke... [2] The No *sshole Rule by Robert Sutton

gaving 13y ago
- people that put their percentage symbols in the wrong place
- illumen 13y ago
  - People who capitalise their sentences. ps. lol
  - theorique 13y ago
    - People who spell 'capitalize' as 'capitalise' pps. lolol
    - James_Duval 13y ago
      - the colonies
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Your buckets are quite simplistic and I doubt your company will be successful. First, if this is the states, you are not allowed to discriminate against clinical depression, so (2) will just lead to a lawsuit eventually. As for (1), if they have the skills are they helpless? Jerks are quite deplorable, but its a gradient right? How much jerkiness do you tolerate, or do you want saints?

dwd 13y ago

In the case of the military it can be the opposite: they weed out applicants who they are not confident will pull the trigger every time they are asked to.

Filligree 13y ago
Well, they try. I don't remember where I got the number, but apparently something like two-thirds of the regular army still end up unwilling/unable to aim properly when a combat situation actually happens. That's from the Great War, though; procedures may have gotten better since.