Re: MD and the LIE DETECTOR test

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Sep 10 2004 - 16:34:55 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    Hello Jim,

    <snip>

    Jim said:
    > I cannot disagree with any of that. <snip>
    > 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.

    mel:
    Although, I can remember a test I took where many
    questions were properly answered by say, B&C,
    which was not an option. B was incomplete alone
    and C was incomplete alone, so being the young
    bright boy I figured they would "GET IT" if I answered
    B on the first question and C on the re-stated question
    later in the test.

    They never GOT IT, I was refered to a psychologist
    instead. He started asking questions well into the
    interview that clued me into one such question
    and I jumped on it and explained the reasoning on my
    part for changing answers...even remembered the
    question numbers. He rolled his eyes and said,
    "Oh God, not one of those. Look these tests are not
    designed for people who think beyond the question,"

    My unrepentant response was, "Then what good
    are they?"

    Well, when you think in a larger space than
    the test designer, they are no good at all. IMO

    Jim said:
    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.

    mel: Good point...

    Jim said:
    > Have you read Stanislaw Lem's Solaris (the
    > Tarkovskiy film is better than the one with Clooney in it btw)?
    >
    mel: Neither read nor seen...yet

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 10 2004 - 16:47:46 BST