Re: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 18:06:21 BST

  • Next message: ml: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    I think they suck and are trying to put DQ
    related human beings into SQ boxes.

    regards
    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "ml" <mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 8:00 PM
    Subject: Re: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test

    > 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" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > 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" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > 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 <mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com>
    > > > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > > > > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > > > >
    > > > > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > > >
    > > > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    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 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 19:50:22 BST