Re: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test

From: MarshaV (marshalz@i-2000.com)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 21:44:10 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    Hi,

    Personality types? Interesting questions! I've taken three different
    versions of the Myers-Briggs tests, and the same personality came up all
    three times. Were these static patterns of personality?

    MarshaV

    At 01:00 PM 9/8/2004 -0600, you wrote:
    >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

    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 - 23:25:52 BST