He got 1%, we can't hire him

Post by dylangs1030 » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

crucini wrote: post #501

dylangs1030 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in that context gaming is known and accounted for. My definition of gaming was manipulation without the proctor or evaluation showing any statistically significant deviation, which is virtually impossible on modern personality tests. The "gaming" becomes transparent and used to score the candidate, if it's present at all.

I appreciate your input, especially as counterweight to those who underestimate the sophistication of these tests. However I question your absolute statement. What man can create, man can circumvent. (How's that for an absolute statement?) Would you say that the people who created the test cannot game it?

Post by foobarbazqux » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 2:03 AM UTC

dylangs1030 wrote: post #511

crucini wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your input, especially as counterweight to those who underestimate the sophistication of these tests. However I question your absolute statement. What man can create, man can circumvent. (How's that for an absolute statement?) Would you say that the people who created the test cannot game it?

No, it can certainly be gamed. It's just so hard without prior knowledge and preparation as to be statistically negligent. This is also why I said you should avoid giving the same test twice. But a single, cold test administration should be very difficult to game. You should also read upthread, what the actual psychologist said. It clarified my comment really well.

  T * My mother is a good woman.
  F * Evil spirits possess me at times.
  F * There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time.
  T * At times I feel like swearing.
  T * My hands and feet are usually warm enough.
  F * Ghosts or spirits can influence people for good or bad.
  F * Someone has been trying to poison me.
  F * Everything tastes the same.
  F * Someone has been trying to rob me.
  F * Bad words, often terrible words, come into my mind
      and I cannot get rid of them.
  F * Often I feel as if there is a tight band around my head.
  F * Peculiar odors come to me at times.
  F * My soul sometimes leaves my body.
  F * When a man is with a woman he is usually thinking
      about things related to her sex.
  F * I often feel as if things are not real.
  F * Someone has it in for me.
  F * My neck spots with red often.
  T * Once in awhile I laugh at a dirty joke.
  F * I hear strange things when I am alone.
  F * In walking I am very careful to step over sidewalk cracks.
  F * At one or more times in my life, I felt that someone
      was making me do things by hypnotizing me.

Post by foobarbazqux » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 2:15 AM UTC

HelloMcFly wrote: post #473

foobarbazqux wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post by crucini » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 2:31 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #494

snake_plissken wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this validates my comment? The two notions regarding criminal law you post are not maddening, but thoroughly reassuring.

They are reassuring from a systemic design perspective, or from the perspective of someone who is accused but innocent. But in the individual case of an obviously guilty person going free, it is legitimately maddening.

Post by asenna » Thu, Aug 29, 2013, 2:37 AM UTC

jamesli wrote: post #497

nknighthb wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their role is to get resumes in front of the real decision makers I worked for a while for Company A, which was founded by a team that included senior engineers and senior management from larger company B, licensed technology from B, did critical contract work for B, and at one point was supposed to become the primary manufacturer of B's products. Company A shut down. My resumé went into company B's HR department,…

> their role is to get resumes in front of the real decision makers For recruiting technical people, it is ideal that the recruiters has relevant technical background. The reality is mostly the opposite. So you never know how many good candidates are filtered out because their resumes are lack of flashy keywords. If the recruiters don't feel hurt, I prefer to screen the resumes by myself. The worse scenario is that y…