[lowglow]

Part 2 of this application is weird.

---snip---

Experimental Assessments

Thank you for completing your project description. Next you'll be presented two assessments: a 10-minute personality questionnaire, followed by a 20-minute brain teaser.

This part is an experiment. Selections will be driven by your project description, not your score on this test. However, you're required to complete this section to submit your application.

---snip---

[WoodenChair]

I agree it's weird. It seems like a classic personality test and pseudo (part of an) IQ test combined. Even collecting these results in the first place raises questions for me. Say that the results do indicate a personality disorder and/or a low IQ. Having that information tied in some random database you applied to for a "side project" raises privacy concerns. Note that the website has no clear (one I can easily find) privacy policy related directly to this aspect of the application. That's a red flag for me since this is highly personal data. In fact it's pretty unprofessional. A couple sentences saying you won't use the data is not sufficient (also why are you collecting it if you're not going to use it? More transparency please).

I would suggest to the creators of this that they immediately delete existing data collected through this part of the application until they can put together a proper privacy policy and be more transparent about how they're going to use the data.

[tomkinson]

I didn't care why, I cared because it was decietful. Eventually by the time they wanted an additional '20 minutes' AFTER already doing a ten question spatial awareness test I quit. Could go on forever. Very private stuff too. To not be upfront with things like that is wrong.

[icc97]

Yeah, transparency matters in this. Laying out the required steps at the beginning is easy to do.

[tomkinson]

Totally agree. All current data should be deleted.

[zebraflask]

Meyers-Briggs testing strikes again! /s

[avip]

Please be transparent about the process, maybe add a "progress tracker". I'm grateful for the HN community saving me much time informing me there's a "personality questionnaire" (wtf is that?) awaiting at the other end of the funnel.

[E: this should have been down there sorry]

[hmm_really]

Is this open to Europeans and have you heard of GDPR?

[danicgross]

Thanks for the feedback! Some extra context: Since we’re hoping to scale the program one day, we’re looking for better ways to identify scientists we should support. Per the description, it’s very experimental and we’re open to any feedback you have.

[tomkinson]

Personally my views are you have a right to ask for whatever you want. Don't lie about it and call it a 'grant in minutes'. Sure there is 525,600 minutes in a year. That many?!! Spell out everything you want upfront. This is a dark design pattern and it's unethical and especially coming from you all you should know better. With sensitive information don't lead people on.

[icc97]

I think as long as you make it clear that there is a 10-minute questionnaire and 20-minute brain-teaser at the start of the application people probably won't mind.

Plus you might want to change your claim from 'minutes' to 'hours'. You won't put off people who really want to apply and you'll get less people who just want easy money, trying to apply and reacting angrily.

[michaelgreen]

Is there a name for the pattern recognition section? I'd be interested in reading more about it and how you use it as a measurement/how the results correlate with the decision process. Does it tie in with the behavioral aspect at all or are they completely independent?

[mindhash]

Agree that you would need a way to filter out applicants who are just half way there.

But I think such tests have no relation to the mission. Mandating a short video on capabilities and need of problem area is likely to filter out most candidates. Making video requires effort.

This will get you people who are serious.

Further you could add option to either take test or 15 min video. Just a suggestion.

[logicallee]

I think the process is great! It's super fast. I hope you do get to glance at the "IQ" test results - if someone is four standard deviations (160 IQ - doesn't describe me) above the mean, then you should fund them even if you don't understand one word of their description. Maybe nobody does in the entire world except for them.

Kudos on the process. Nothing wrong with it.

[thecatspaw]

all that IQ tests validate is how well someone can take an IQ test. It means absolutely nothing in terms of validity of ideas, business sense, self motivation, discipline, leadership skills etc.

[exolymph]

That is not true. IQ correlates with basically every good life outcome.

Here's an example discussion of how this works, drawing on various studies: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/02/stalin-and-summary-stat...

[logicallee]

You try a rebuttal, which I commend, but the approach of your rebuttal isn't strong enough! Height also correlates with "basically every good life outcome" but the application form didn't ask for our height: nor should it.

IQ is inherently different. I really support the IQ test they decided to give and I definitely think they should glance at the results - especially to basically approve any applications from people with great results even if the evaluators don't understand the proposed application exactly.

[logicallee]

yeah? well I say: all a normal funding application does is test how well you can fill out a funding application!

So adding an IQ test changes that to something meaningful, that correlates with AI (what these applications are for). After all, how is a low-intelligence person supposed to make a project in artificial intelligence!

I stand 100% by my support of their process.

[sigi45]

Wow that is actually disgusting.

There might be a lower limit IQ you might need to be able to hold enough data in your head to archive specific thoughts but i don't think that this limit is very high.

There are enough dedicated human beings out there who are not that smart but dedicated. They are easily able to do projects in artificial intelligence.

AI is not that complicated. It takes probably more stamina than IQ as a lot of research does.

[logicallee]

I am certain that you are factually mistaken and there is not one single AI researcher anyone in the world who has ever personally coded a single project without having a high IQ. Sorry.