Psychometric tests suck?

[Hellbender]

Thanks, reverse. I guess for that question "people like me" you are right, the correct answer would be somewhere in between. I am sure these tests serve some purpose, but they seem kind of flawed to me.

[reverse]

Did you read my ENTIRE post? The last line clearly states that this question is not to be taken BY ITSELF, but included in a scale of depression...If you don't know what a "scale" is, READ my post again...

 

I did read it thanks.

 

it was just an example.

[reverse]

I wouldn't check off 1 or 5 but maybe 4 or 3. Usually I think people are better off steering down the middle in personality tests. One might imply you are arrogant or' date=' even worse, narcissistic. 1 or 2, would imply you have no self esteem.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting if we actually could know what people think of us?[/quote']

 

and if you think about it even more...who are the "people" in question (in the question).

your best friends...they think you are great, or your lazy workmate who gets miffed every time you dump the work he tried to shirk right back in his lap.

bet you aren’t on the top of his Xmas list.

[Asian Guy]

Psychometric tests suck?

 

I know the history of Psychometric testing and have compared them to other ways of categorising people by nature.

 

You can pretty much make them come out what ever way you want by adjusting your mindset at the start of the test' date='

 

yet some Employers pay large fees to have them administered?

 

 

What do you folks think of the tests?[/quote']

 

The science behind psychometric testing is completely legit. The most accurate test we currently have are IQ tests, but other tests that are also good are ones that measure the Big 5 Personality traits:

 

introversion/extroversion

open to experience vs. conventionality

neuroticism

altruism vs. tough mindedness

conscientiousness

[Flareon]

The science behind psychometric testing is completely legit.

 

I disagree..perhaps not so much with the IQ tests, but for the Big Five, and other 'personality' tests. Big Five is a 'theory,' just like Jung's 4 functions, Erikson's 8 stages of growth, and even Freud's ideas of the id, ego, and superego. The only truly scientific psychological tests lie within in the disciplinary likes of behavioral psychology and neuropsychology. The reason that personality test are not scientific, is because traits are not able to be manipulated, therfore not condusive to experimentation.

 

Perhaps in the future when human understanding of the mind and its role in personality have reached beyond our current 'blind-men-studying-an-elephant' status, we can devise tests of personality that will be more scientific.

 

Back to the original argument, I can see how one can argue that such tests are necessary as an aiding tool for assessing future employees, but to call them scientific? Not really.

[reverse]

The science behind psychometric testing is completely legit. The most accurate test we currently have are IQ tests' date=' but other tests that are also good are ones that measure the Big 5 Personality traits:

 

introversion/extroversion

open to experience vs. conventionality

neuroticism

altruism vs. tough mindedness

conscientiousness[/quote']

 

I really dont get this stuff.

pragmatic people like me vary with the situation (as long as deeply seated ideals are not violated).

[Void]

I disagree..perhaps not so much with the IQ tests' date=' but for the Big Five, and other 'personality' tests. Big Five is a 'theory,' just like Jung's 4 functions, Erikson's 8 stages of growth, and even Freud's ideas of the id, ego, and superego. The only truly scientific psychological tests lie within in the disciplinary likes of behavioral psychology and neuropsychology. The reason that personality test are not scientific, is because traits are not able to be manipulated, therfore not condusive to experimentation.

 

Perhaps in the future when human understanding of the mind and its role in personality have reached beyond our current 'blind-men-studying-an-elephant' status, we can devise tests of personality that will be more scientific.

 

Back to the original argument, I can see how one can argue that such tests are necessary as an aiding tool for assessing future employees, but to call them scientific? Not really.[/quote']

 

I don't know, since Cattell started research on some model of personality, its has shown up time and time and time and time again to be composed of 5 general factors. Just look at Goldberg, or Costa and McCrae. There work, partly the re-analysis of Cattell's earlier work, and recent endeavors of there own, show that the 5-factor model, or the Big 5 (Yes they are slightly different), are fairly well understood and reliable statistically.

[Coral Rhedd]

But what about when the result of tests change due to certain influences? I will use the Meyers-Briggs as an example and myself, since I am familiar with both:

 

I am ADD and unmedicated I am:

 

INTP

 

Medicated:

 

INTJ

 

And even then the introversion declines so that I am almost an E. What does this mean that personality can be so fluid and that drugs can change who we are? It makes me wonder just what the identity we cherish so much really means.

[Void]

What about it? Seems fairly obvious to me.

[Coral Rhedd]

What about it? Seems fairly obvious to me.

 

Hmmmm. I wonder if you will post nicely in reply to me?

 

Does this mean, in your opinion, that there is no basic person or identity that we each have?

[reverse]

I don't know, since Cattell started research on some model of personality, its has shown up time and time and time and time again to be composed of 5 general factors. Just look at Goldberg, or Costa and McCrae. There work, partly the re-analysis of Cattell's earlier work, and recent endeavors of there own, show that the 5-factor model, or the Big 5 (Yes they are slightly different), are fairly well understood and reliable statistically.

 

I like the ancient one,

where the types of snot and spit and blood that were most abundant in you determined who you were.

 

Or Horoscopes,

The time of birth seals your personality.

 

As far as I know, no 500 question test is going to be able to predict how well I can do a job.

And without any form of medication I'm willing to bet that the way I spend my day and who I spend it with will adjust all my levels of extraversion or conscientiousness.

[boxhead]

it is a mixture of art and science.

[reverse]

So has anyone seen any really interesting methods of categorizing personality?

 

This is what I have so far…..

 

The most simple one is the front line police one …

Good guys and bad guys.

 

There is a US high school one from films…

the geeks, the stoners ..etc etc.

 

There are the ancient ones

Colic and Phlegmatic …

 

There are the Occult ones,

Leo, Virgo, Scorpio…

 

There are the Multiphasic ones

…Extrovert, Introvert…

 

Have you come across any others ?

[Coral Rhedd]

So has anyone seen any really interesting methods of categorizing personality?

 

This is what I have so far…..

 

The most simple one is the front line police one …

Good guys and bad guys.

 

There is a US high school one from films…

the geeks' date=' the stoners ..etc etc.

 

There are the ancient ones

Colic and Phlegmatic …

 

There are the Occult ones,

Leo, Virgo, Scorpio…

 

There are the Multiphasic ones

…Extrovert, Introvert…

 

Have you come across any others ?[/quote']

 

The Enneagram. Somewhat occult origins perhaps, but it is just another way of typing people.

[reverse]

Thanks, one more to add to the collection.

 

Just found out that the observer had a report that said,

after following up the success of applicants screened with these tests,

the results showed that you would have just as much success by reading their tea leaves

 

ps. tried to answer some of those Enneagram type tests in different ways.

sure enough you can make them give exactly the personality type you want - by getting into a particular mindset before you start.

I even got one to come out almost dead flat across all traits,(that taxed the old memory a bit).

[Coral Rhedd]

Thanks' date=' one more to add to the collection.

 

Just found out that the observer had a report that said,

after following up the success of applicants screened with these tests,

the results showed that you would have just as much success by reading their tea leaves

 

ps. tried to answer some of those Enneagram type tests in different ways.

sure enough you can make them give exactly the personality type you want - by getting into a particular mindset before you start.

I even got one to come out almost dead flat across all traits,(that taxed the old memory a bit).[/quote']

 

Actually, I like the Enneagram better than the Myers-Briggs, perhaps because I was introduced to it in a group of people who were very eager to learn about themselves. However, I do not test to consistenly in it. I am a four with a five wing with strong 8 traits. And I can always tell when I am not well. I get six-ish.

 

I think people who are more like their peers are less likely to be fascinated with these tests. Their environment is already a mirror in which they can view themselves.

 

Your tea leaf comparison is apt. The chief advantage of things like tea leaf reading and tarot cards is that they are a tool for people to introspect.

 

Is there such a thing as too much navel gazing, do you think?