Assuming the test is effective (big assumption), I wonder how many of the company's top employees would have passed? If it's anything less than 100%, they would never have hired those great people...
Assuming the test is effective (big assumption), I wonder how many of the company's top employees would have passed? If it's anything less than 100%, they would never have hired those great people and the company would be worse off...
The execution may be imperfect, but I think the bright side of these évaluations is that more companies are trying to make data-driven decisions instead of making "gut decisions." Given the vast...
The execution may be imperfect, but I think the bright side of these évaluations is that more companies are trying to make data-driven decisions instead of making "gut decisions." Given the vast amount of research examining the biases in hiring, any impartiality is probably to be lauded, not decried.
You don't think it's deeply disrespectful of the candidate's time to make them spend it answering an 80 question long quiz, as the start of the hiring process?
You don't think it's deeply disrespectful of the candidate's time to make them spend it answering an 80 question long quiz, as the start of the hiring process?
I feel like there's a "meta" employment reason behind companies utilizing this quiz, like that those companies want candidates who are willing to sit through a 80-question-long ridiculous...
I feel like there's a "meta" employment reason behind companies utilizing this quiz, like that those companies want candidates who are willing to sit through a 80-question-long ridiculous personality quiz. Candidates who think this quiz isn't worth their time might be more likely to be candidates who care about their work life balance, work environment, having a competitive salary, career growth, etc.
Not really, no. Is it better to have the test later in the process? If you need to pass a test and an interview to get hired, I'd rather have the first "gate" be the one I can do whenever I want...
Not really, no. Is it better to have the test later in the process? If you need to pass a test and an interview to get hired, I'd rather have the first "gate" be the one I can do whenever I want from the comfort of my home, rather than making time for an interview first and then getting disqualified by the personality test after.
I am struggling to see how it's disrespectful. What would the respectful inverse be?
Personality tests are notoriously unreliable, even when they purport to be supported by science it usually turns out to have been shoddy science. I found a screenshot on reddit of one of the...
Personality tests are notoriously unreliable, even when they purport to be supported by science it usually turns out to have been shoddy science.
I found a screenshot on reddit of one of the questions: Image
It doesn't seem very data driven to me :) If it's me taking the test, it would feel insulting, or at least pointlessly corporate and soul numbing.
I don't know if you can tell if something is data driven or not by an image. Companies like Walmart have been giving people personality quizzes in their application for a long time. Turns out...
I don't know if you can tell if something is data driven or not by an image. Companies like Walmart have been giving people personality quizzes in their application for a long time. Turns out there actually are significant correlations between how people answer those questions and how good of an employee they are likely to be. The amount of data generated by some of these corporations can be surprisingly powerful and is kind of scary.
Then again, I agree with you that it's insulting, impersonal, and a symptom of the enshittification of society as a whole.
My wife was emailed the "correct answers" for one of these types of personality tests when applying for a job at a company that her friend works at. It's kind of funny that it was like a 50 MB...
My wife was emailed the "correct answers" for one of these types of personality tests when applying for a job at a company that her friend works at. It's kind of funny that it was like a 50 MB word document (many pages of screenshots) and seemed to be a few years old (the Windows clock was 2019) because of this I doubt she was the first recipient of the answers file.
If people are already friends then they'll probably work well together. I wouldn't assume at face value that any HR survey is written or conducted with the same methodology as a double blind "Big 5" controlled experiment. So the results of higher employee performance might just be from arbitrary gatekeeping and existing human networks who know the right handshakes
Dunno about the current one, but when I filled out the application over a decade ago there had to have been at least 50 personality questions. Not going to bother checking the application now, but...
Dunno about the current one, but when I filled out the application over a decade ago there had to have been at least 50 personality questions. Not going to bother checking the application now, but their website says it should take 45-60 minutes to fill out the application. It doesn't take that long to fill in personal information and work experience, so I assume a good chunk of that is for personality questions.
If the test produces zero interesting or useful information and is only there because higher management needed something to do in meetings, I find it disrespectful to do. These quests will always...
If the test produces zero interesting or useful information and is only there because higher management needed something to do in meetings, I find it disrespectful to do.
These quests will always be seen as something to pass rather than honestly answer. People will always try to game the system.
I appreciate this viewpoint, but I don't share it. My perspective is that this is an attempt to improve on things. How can x company know if the test is useful without trying it? What better...
If the test produces zero interesting or useful information and is only there because higher management needed something to do in meetings...
I appreciate this viewpoint, but I don't share it. My perspective is that this is an attempt to improve on things. How can x company know if the test is useful without trying it? What better data-driven options are there?
Stuff like this has existed for several years now and they're considered not that effective and there are complaints that some are medical exams used to discriminate. I get gross vibes off of...
Stuff like this has existed for several years now and they're considered not that effective and there are complaints that some are medical exams used to discriminate.
That first link....Every HR major I met in school thought they were doing it to "help the employees". That thought alone makes me question their intelligence, ability to understand complex...
That first link....Every HR major I met in school thought they were doing it to "help the employees". That thought alone makes me question their intelligence, ability to understand complex scientific papers, and basic perception of reality.
You can make some inferences about the impact of a person’s activities based on how little anyone notices them failing to adapt to current known best practices.
You can make some inferences about the impact of a person’s activities based on how little anyone notices them failing to adapt to current known best practices.
Except that the algorithms and the "AI" that support this process just as biased as what hiring managers are doing right now. If this company wants to convince me that the result is data-driven...
The execution may be imperfect, but I think the bright side of these évaluations is that more companies are trying to make data-driven decisions instead of making "gut decisions." Given the vast amount of research examining the biases in hiring, any impartiality is probably to be lauded, not decried.
Except that the algorithms and the "AI" that support this process just as biased as what hiring managers are doing right now. If this company wants to convince me that the result is data-driven and impartial, it should back that up with a lot of solid scientific evidence. Otherwise, it's just snake-oil.
This is meant to be testing for Big 5 attributes (NOT MBTI - which is more dodgy) , which are well studied in the field of psychology and generally agreed to be rigorous and useful. The only...
This is meant to be testing for Big 5 attributes (NOT MBTI - which is more dodgy) , which are well studied in the field of psychology and generally agreed to be rigorous and useful. The only question is how they chose the specific questions in their test, and if they are valid.
Making decisions based on bad data is not preferable to making decisions based on no data. Bad data is actually worse than no data. And when I say bad data I don't necessarily mean the collection...
Making decisions based on bad data is not preferable to making decisions based on no data. Bad data is actually worse than no data.
And when I say bad data I don't necessarily mean the collection of the data is bad. I mean like, the fundamental operating model of what the data collected is measuring and how it lines up to objective reality is wrong.
There is a process to making data driven decisions, and that process does not involve just abdicating all responsibility and judgement to the first set of numbers and metrics someone brought up that seem cromulent. Being data driven means interrogating your data intensely. Data, in general, is much better for rejecting a hypothesis than accepting one. You should use it to referee your gut instincts, not replace them.
Hard disagree. There's no evidence that black-box decisions from AI would be any less biased than a person's. The decision making process needs to be auditable.
Hard disagree. There's no evidence that black-box decisions from AI would be any less biased than a person's. The decision making process needs to be auditable.
Agreed, but that's not what this is. This is a personality test. Per the article,
Hard disagree. There's no evidence that black-box decisions from AI would be any less biased than a person's.
Agreed, but that's not what this is. This is a personality test. Per the article,
Despite including AI in its URL, AI, it seems, has nothing to do with this part of Paradox’s offerings to hiring companies. It is just like any number of big five personality quizzes you can do online, but with images and Ash the alien instead of multiple choice questions.
I don't think these are free from bias. The assumptions made from your selection was created within a set of cultural assumptions. What I perceive in one image could be radically different from...
I don't think these are free from bias. The assumptions made from your selection was created within a set of cultural assumptions. What I perceive in one image could be radically different from what the creator intended and reports on. If you want to remove biases from the hiring process put together a diverse team in the first place and allow everyone to be involved.
Sure. In some of the original links, the posters have cropped out the text that accompanies the images, which should help standardize what people are perceiving. It's worth checking out the...
Sure. In some of the original links, the posters have cropped out the text that accompanies the images, which should help standardize what people are perceiving.
It's worth checking out the Wikipedia page on support and criticism for the Big Five's (which is what this is) cross-cultural applicability. If you don't have time, the summary is that there are problems, but it's not completely invalid.
Despite including AI in its URL, AI, it seems, has nothing to do with this part of Paradox’s offerings to hiring companies. It is just like any number of big five personality quizzes you can do online, but with images and Ash the alien instead of multiple choice questions. On its site, Paradox explains that Ash is there to allow applicants to more easily project themselves into these scenarios, regardless of their race. “The characters used throughout the assessment are constructed to be race, age, and gender neutral,” Paradox’s site says. “More than 71% of test participants saw Ash, the main character throughout, as their own race.”
So, I have seen variations on this theme before and have come to my own conclusion about the root intent behind it, which I am confident is meant to be obscure. I do not believe this actually...
So, I have seen variations on this theme before and have come to my own conclusion about the root intent behind it, which I am confident is meant to be obscure.
I do not believe this actually gives real, objective data on personality. That isn't the point.
The purpose of these bizarre, bullshit 'tests' and series of hoops candidates are forced to jump through is to filter out people who won't accept being abused and select for desperation.
A person who is willing to call this out for what it is and refuse to participate is filtered out.
A person who is financially desperate and has little choice but to accept what is dumped on them and jump through all these hoops is selected for, leaving the companies using these tools with a filtered pool of candidates far more likely to work for the lowest pay and accept being exploited.
After I clawed my way out of poverty and solidified myself in a better position of financial security (no debt, low expenses and money in the bank) I found myself in a position to not accept being treated like this and refused to participate in these kind of filtering tools.
And you know what? I still got contracts, I still got jobs. I found myself in the position of telling people "I'm sorry, but I don't see a good purpose in doing this and I have other demands on my time" and "no, I'm not willing to agree to these contract clauses as they are blatantly lopsided - can you please explain why you want me to waive my right to any legal proceeding and resolve any dispute through your in-house arbitration? That is clearly not only not in my favor, but also effectively hands you complete power in any dispute." These are parts of conversations I had with the owners of companies I did work for - admittedly small companies, not giant corporations - and it worked out in my favor. I still worked with them, still got paid, didn't have to jump through these bizarre hoops and got my contracts amended to versions that didn't cause me to cringe in disgust.
So that's my take on these practices. They are the current evolution of one of the tools being used to exploit people and filter out those who would object to being exploited.
I've seen a repost of the reddit thread yesterday, and it's worth noting that the person who posted the screenshots cropped the question on top of the images. So it's not only a weird picture with...
I've seen a repost of the reddit thread yesterday, and it's worth noting that the person who posted the screenshots cropped the question on top of the images. So it's not only a weird picture with "me/not me", but there's a context that goes with it, and the image is only there to illustrate.
While entirely possible that is the case it only makes it a little less of a time waster. There is generally is no actual supporting research for most (if any) of these types of personality tests....
While entirely possible that is the case it only makes it a little less of a time waster. There is generally is no actual supporting research for most (if any) of these types of personality tests. A lot of these things are decades old debunked pseudo science but keep being sold by companies to other companies because it is the sales pitch that counts apparently.
Well that's good to know cause looking at some of those images (including the one in the article posted), have no idea what they are supposed to be portraying (like is that guy being stand offish...
Well that's good to know cause looking at some of those images (including the one in the article posted), have no idea what they are supposed to be portraying (like is that guy being stand offish in that scenario or maybe he's just listening to the other people talk. Like what would I be saying I was like if I said I was like that image).
TL;DR they require emails now to combat AIs scraping their website and ripping off their articles. https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-address/ But you can sign up with an email...
TL;DR they require emails now to combat AIs scraping their website and ripping off their articles.
I feel for the people who need a job bad enough that they have to go through that.
Assuming the test is effective (big assumption), I wonder how many of the company's top employees would have passed? If it's anything less than 100%, they would never have hired those great people and the company would be worse off...
The execution may be imperfect, but I think the bright side of these évaluations is that more companies are trying to make data-driven decisions instead of making "gut decisions." Given the vast amount of research examining the biases in hiring, any impartiality is probably to be lauded, not decried.
You don't think it's deeply disrespectful of the candidate's time to make them spend it answering an 80 question long quiz, as the start of the hiring process?
I feel like there's a "meta" employment reason behind companies utilizing this quiz, like that those companies want candidates who are willing to sit through a 80-question-long ridiculous personality quiz. Candidates who think this quiz isn't worth their time might be more likely to be candidates who care about their work life balance, work environment, having a competitive salary, career growth, etc.
Not really, no. Is it better to have the test later in the process? If you need to pass a test and an interview to get hired, I'd rather have the first "gate" be the one I can do whenever I want from the comfort of my home, rather than making time for an interview first and then getting disqualified by the personality test after.
I am struggling to see how it's disrespectful. What would the respectful inverse be?
Personality tests are notoriously unreliable, even when they purport to be supported by science it usually turns out to have been shoddy science.
I found a screenshot on reddit of one of the questions: Image
It doesn't seem very data driven to me :) If it's me taking the test, it would feel insulting, or at least pointlessly corporate and soul numbing.
I don't know if you can tell if something is data driven or not by an image. Companies like Walmart have been giving people personality quizzes in their application for a long time. Turns out there actually are significant correlations between how people answer those questions and how good of an employee they are likely to be. The amount of data generated by some of these corporations can be surprisingly powerful and is kind of scary.
Then again, I agree with you that it's insulting, impersonal, and a symptom of the enshittification of society as a whole.
My wife was emailed the "correct answers" for one of these types of personality tests when applying for a job at a company that her friend works at. It's kind of funny that it was like a 50 MB word document (many pages of screenshots) and seemed to be a few years old (the Windows clock was 2019) because of this I doubt she was the first recipient of the answers file.
If people are already friends then they'll probably work well together. I wouldn't assume at face value that any HR survey is written or conducted with the same methodology as a double blind "Big 5" controlled experiment. So the results of higher employee performance might just be from arbitrary gatekeeping and existing human networks who know the right handshakes
Wait, is Walmart's quiz 80 questions long?
Dunno about the current one, but when I filled out the application over a decade ago there had to have been at least 50 personality questions. Not going to bother checking the application now, but their website says it should take 45-60 minutes to fill out the application. It doesn't take that long to fill in personal information and work experience, so I assume a good chunk of that is for personality questions.
If the test produces zero interesting or useful information and is only there because higher management needed something to do in meetings, I find it disrespectful to do.
These quests will always be seen as something to pass rather than honestly answer. People will always try to game the system.
I appreciate this viewpoint, but I don't share it. My perspective is that this is an attempt to improve on things. How can x company know if the test is useful without trying it? What better data-driven options are there?
Stuff like this has existed for several years now and they're considered not that effective and there are complaints that some are medical exams used to discriminate.
I get gross vibes off of these tests.
That first link....Every HR major I met in school thought they were doing it to "help the employees". That thought alone makes me question their intelligence, ability to understand complex scientific papers, and basic perception of reality.
You can make some inferences about the impact of a person’s activities based on how little anyone notices them failing to adapt to current known best practices.
Except that the algorithms and the "AI" that support this process just as biased as what hiring managers are doing right now. If this company wants to convince me that the result is data-driven and impartial, it should back that up with a lot of solid scientific evidence. Otherwise, it's just snake-oil.
This is meant to be testing for Big 5 attributes (NOT MBTI - which is more dodgy) , which are well studied in the field of psychology and generally agreed to be rigorous and useful. The only question is how they chose the specific questions in their test, and if they are valid.
The data here is garbage though. I'd rather be assessed based on literal haruspicy than this.
This notion that "the situation is bad, so anything we do differently is good!" consistently leads to bad outcomes. I wish people would learn this.
Making decisions based on bad data is not preferable to making decisions based on no data. Bad data is actually worse than no data.
And when I say bad data I don't necessarily mean the collection of the data is bad. I mean like, the fundamental operating model of what the data collected is measuring and how it lines up to objective reality is wrong.
There is a process to making data driven decisions, and that process does not involve just abdicating all responsibility and judgement to the first set of numbers and metrics someone brought up that seem cromulent. Being data driven means interrogating your data intensely. Data, in general, is much better for rejecting a hypothesis than accepting one. You should use it to referee your gut instincts, not replace them.
(I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, so in case my message was unclear I agree with you, pretty much for the reasons you describe)
Ha no worries. Yeah I was agreeing and expanding.
That's really not at all what I said.
Hard disagree. There's no evidence that black-box decisions from AI would be any less biased than a person's. The decision making process needs to be auditable.
Agreed, but that's not what this is. This is a personality test. Per the article,
I don't think these are free from bias. The assumptions made from your selection was created within a set of cultural assumptions. What I perceive in one image could be radically different from what the creator intended and reports on. If you want to remove biases from the hiring process put together a diverse team in the first place and allow everyone to be involved.
Sure. In some of the original links, the posters have cropped out the text that accompanies the images, which should help standardize what people are perceiving.
It's worth checking out the Wikipedia page on support and criticism for the Big Five's (which is what this is) cross-cultural applicability. If you don't have time, the summary is that there are problems, but it's not completely invalid.
If the numbers being input have no established statistical relevance to what you're trying to measure, can it even be considered data driven?
"I can't lie to you about your chances, but you have my sympathies."
Reminds me of the Greendale Human Being
So, I have seen variations on this theme before and have come to my own conclusion about the root intent behind it, which I am confident is meant to be obscure.
I do not believe this actually gives real, objective data on personality. That isn't the point.
The purpose of these bizarre, bullshit 'tests' and series of hoops candidates are forced to jump through is to filter out people who won't accept being abused and select for desperation.
A person who is willing to call this out for what it is and refuse to participate is filtered out.
A person who is financially desperate and has little choice but to accept what is dumped on them and jump through all these hoops is selected for, leaving the companies using these tools with a filtered pool of candidates far more likely to work for the lowest pay and accept being exploited.
After I clawed my way out of poverty and solidified myself in a better position of financial security (no debt, low expenses and money in the bank) I found myself in a position to not accept being treated like this and refused to participate in these kind of filtering tools.
And you know what? I still got contracts, I still got jobs. I found myself in the position of telling people "I'm sorry, but I don't see a good purpose in doing this and I have other demands on my time" and "no, I'm not willing to agree to these contract clauses as they are blatantly lopsided - can you please explain why you want me to waive my right to any legal proceeding and resolve any dispute through your in-house arbitration? That is clearly not only not in my favor, but also effectively hands you complete power in any dispute." These are parts of conversations I had with the owners of companies I did work for - admittedly small companies, not giant corporations - and it worked out in my favor. I still worked with them, still got paid, didn't have to jump through these bizarre hoops and got my contracts amended to versions that didn't cause me to cringe in disgust.
So that's my take on these practices. They are the current evolution of one of the tools being used to exploit people and filter out those who would object to being exploited.
I've seen a repost of the reddit thread yesterday, and it's worth noting that the person who posted the screenshots cropped the question on top of the images. So it's not only a weird picture with "me/not me", but there's a context that goes with it, and the image is only there to illustrate.
While entirely possible that is the case it only makes it a little less of a time waster. There is generally is no actual supporting research for most (if any) of these types of personality tests. A lot of these things are decades old debunked pseudo science but keep being sold by companies to other companies because it is the sales pitch that counts apparently.
Well that's good to know cause looking at some of those images (including the one in the article posted), have no idea what they are supposed to be portraying (like is that guy being stand offish in that scenario or maybe he's just listening to the other people talk. Like what would I be saying I was like if I said I was like that image).
I once had to sit through an all-day CliftonStrengths assessment with an employer and it was one of the most insulting things I've ever gone through
Is there a way to read the article without signing up?
TL;DR they require emails now to combat AIs scraping their website and ripping off their articles.
https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-address/
But you can sign up with an email alias.
They have to ask for an email address to prevent their site from being scraped.