From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 20:00:52 BST
David,
That is a good question. Not sure how
to think of those, morally... hmmm.
Morally, it seems that it comes down to the
intent of the test on the one hand and the
application-evaluation on the other.
Is the definition of a personality type a
social definition or an intellectual one?
Is the operational level of the individual
social or intellectual?
Is the requiring entity a social entity with
a purpose of dominating a biological
individual, or a social individual, or an
intellectual?
Does the test TRULY measure what is
needed or is i simply being pulled off
the shelf as a "close" match?
Does the test truly reflect the possible
universe of test takers?
In evaluation, how are the "corner-cases"
and "outliers" handled?
================
For existing tests...
In operation however, those few times
I've been involved in those exrcises, even
when it was the same test, I ended up in
very different quadrants. It seemed that
the test answers were more a measure
of my mood on THAT day, than anything
at base about my personality.
The assumptions of the test creator
and the variability in personal use of
language and education, when they
are sufficiently different make a train
wreck out of the whole thing. (The
company or test creator will strongly
deny such and discuss their validation
testing, but it is always a "short cut"
rather than rigorous...they have an
axe to grind at the testing companie$.)
So, before I even get to Moral, the tests
generally tend to suck.
Case in point, the best salesman I've
known failed all the tests as a sales
candidate given by his department.
(He had already been working there
before they started testing.)
The tests said he was an introverted
intellectual, an "engineer type", and
not a "people person". What the test
could not measure was that he had a
passion for the product and that the
buyers were largely engineer types,
who resisted glad handing salesmen.
Of course it may be that the tests I've
seen were simply Schlock-jobs and
that is why it looks so bad...
A well designed test might show your
tendency, but will ever measure the
reality of perfomance choices in the real
workplace. The only sure measure of a
job is doing the job.
thanks--mel
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Morey" < >
To: < >
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test
> What about so-called personality tests?
>
> DM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Roberts" < >
> To: < >
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 7:05 PM
> Subject: RE: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test
>
>
> > Mel,
> >
> > Since I am a nervous sort of person, I've never been able to imagine
> > passing one, even without lying, so I too have always been bothered. It
> > could be that they can take this into account, but I'm not inclined to
> > trust them.
> >
> > My view is that if employers requires a lie detector test, or a
urinalysis
> > for that matter, then it is immoral to sign up with them, as well as it
> > being immoral for them to require the test. Pretty much for reason (2),
> the
> > Giant dominating the individual.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: ml < >
> > > To: < >
> > > Date: 9/7/2004 12:12:42 PM
> > > Subject: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test
> > >
> > > All:
> > >
> > > What is the morality of a lie detector test as
> > > a pre-employment test?
> > >
> > > It seems to me, for questions concerning your
> > > opinions and personal views, to be:
> > > 1) a physical level device placed in 'judgement'
> > > over a biological being.
> > > 2) a social level attempt at dominating the
> > > intellectual function of a person.
> > >
> > > The very existence of the "test" bothered me
> > > when I first heard of it at age five. Seemed that it
> > > was somehow wrong, not unlike the feeling I
> > > had at learning about the guilliotine or the rack.
> > >
> > > thanks--mel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries -
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries -
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 20:41:19 BST