On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Colin M. Strickland <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Dec 2008, at 10:31, Alex Francis wrote: > >> then some magic >> software wrote 20 pages about each of us. Spookily accurate stuff, >> too. > > Do you not think that this sort of thing is a bit prone to Horoscope > techniques? e.g. It's generalised, but tending to flattery. You have a > strong sense of personal values, which is nice, but I find it hard to > think of anyone failing to identify with that. What values ? Of > course, they're 'personal', you're unique and special. > > I find it hard to imagine anyone getting dealt the converse - 'you > have a weak sense of personal values'. And then you might unkindly > suggest the weaknesses are balanced in the form of the 'rainbow ruse' > beloved of spiritualists and psychic quackery - you *may* become > stubborn *if* pressured etc. You mitigate a vague negative with an > flattering escape clause, and everyone will be able to identify their > personality as having qualities from both sides at some point or > another. I doubt any of this would fare well in formal double-blind > tests for accuracy.
For one employer I was put through a battery of psychometric tests and some definitely do not come out flattering. Typically this is in the form of maxing out in one particular direction (which isn't wholly positive, think "OCD") at the expense of another. Assessments present in the form of "maybe too heavily involved in aspect X, and lack of development in area Y may hinder dealing with situations W and V" or "over development in aspect X may cause friction with others owing to lack of Y" etc. > This sort of thing bothers me slightly on a couple of levels. It's a > bit of a worry if employers formalise this practice, and incorporate > into staff assessment processes, or hiring decisions. I also fear that If it's formalised and metrics are recorded that's a basis for determining whether it's effective, at least. Assuming the company has the sense to actually do that assessment :) ** I was once a mentor on a post-grad programme and we worked as a group on various tasks, puzzles, and games. Amongst those we did various psychometric tests, some of which were aimed at groups (Belbin's one of them, IIRC). Our particular group for whatever reason worked really, really well - people fell effortlessly into roles, discussions were quick and productive, there was almost no disagreement amongst anyone over anything. It was pretty much a perfect team. In the day-long in the end-of-week challenge, we scored very highly. Now what was really interesting was that after the challenge the results of our Belbin (I think) tests were revealed and the combination of our various team members almost exactly matched with complementary and equally balanced skills and traits across the board. I realise this is anecdotal but it was quite a "Wow" moment seeing how we meshed as a group in practice and how the theory correlated so well. P > it plays up to the cult-of-personality and ego-driven individualism > that I think is an all too prevalent, and unhelpful trope within > programmer/spod culture in general. > > None of this is supposed to specifically apply to Mr. Alex Francis of > course, who I don't really know, but assume to be an excellent fellow. > > -- > Regards, > Colin M. Strickland > > _______________________________________________ > BristolBathPM mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm > _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
