From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 23:04:02 BST
Hi Mel,
ml wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Ledbury" <jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com>
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 11:16 AM
>Subject: Re: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test
>
>
>Jim said:
>
>
>
>>Given that "individual" means in essence indivisible and they are trying
>>to split you into your characteristics, not to mensh the fact that MOQ
>>would say that you operate at intellectual, social, biological (not to
>>mention chemical) levels - all often conflicting, maybe we should
>>discard this concept, except as a convenient jargon to describe this
>>particular nexus of quality perceptions.
>>
>>
>You make an interesting point, which makes me
>think about my "work persona" as compared to my
>private persona.
>
>While I express only an easy almost laid-back
>friendliness at work, and limit who I showmyself
>to be, to just those portions of my background
>directly applicable to work; I also can draw on other
>knowledge and skills at will. (Like showing only one
>facet of a gemstone, which behaves one way in the
>specific light, but showing no other.)
>
>So, when taking a test, I probably show only what
>I feel that day or what I anticipate for that test...
>If I don't filter, I will never finish the test as it
>truly won't have appropriate answers on it, as
>David observed.
>
>The power of selective and dependent filtering
>would make such tests that much more off-target.
>
>thanks--mel
>
>
>
I cannot disagree with any of that. If you are applying for something
that will (if lucky) improve your life or (if less lucky) will take you
off a starvation diet), you will obviously bear in mind the potential
opinion of the examiner. The real problem lies in where the test is
designed to be machine readable - in which case the positive or negative
implications of your answer will be determinded by a simple (uh ...
let's get this right: SIMPLISTIC) algorithm. I guess the existence of a
personal interview is the nod and wink to the reality of the fallibilty
of this essential fact. About the only utility in personality tests I
have come across is in detecting obvious and potentially damaging
inconsistencies in attitude before dedicating resources to an
interview: it's just a filter. Lie detector tests though come under a
completely different category that mere personality tests - I wouldn't
work for any company that had them unless it was for something as
serious as national security (and as to what constitutes 'national
security' I have many opinions that might not accord with my government).
But of course people behave differently depending on circumstances. On
first meeting your betrothed's parents are you not on your A1
behaviour? If meeting with your long term friends in a bar is not your
behaviour somewhat different? Even on our own we have conflicting
impulses. 'Individual' is just a convenient term for a viable
ecological package. Have you read Stanislaw Lem's Solaris (the
Tarkovskiy film is better than the one with Clooney in it btw)?
ATB
Jim
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 - 23:07:54 BST