[FishInTheWater]

The issue with them is that it's not simply "looking at oneself".

If you were using divination for that purposes then it's no issue. Harmless superstition is fine.

But things like personality tests and other pseudoscience see regular use in hiring and promotion. And that's just ridiculous, damaging for both "honest" applicants and the company, as such processes favour dishonest people.

[Loughla]

Do personality tests see regular use in hiring and promotion? What are some examples of that? My workplaces have offered those sorts of things as professional development, but not for direct promotion or hiring practices. I would be fascinated to see the outcome of a place that does use those things in that way.

[detourdog]

Long ago the first place I worked developed a HyperCard stack for Myers-Briggs evaluations for a specific company. The company used it as tool to improve communications between existing employees. The purpose is to give everyone the same language. Fundamentally one is not in simply one category but can move through all the categories based on their current state and context.

Helping people have language to express this thoughts has value.

Misuse of any tool is a problem.

[Velofellow]

In my experience yes - At an earlier role, all employees were subjected to a DISC assessment at hire. This was at the headquarter office of a large real estate franchise. Results were kept in your file, and were a big component during reviews.

The biggest flavor-aid drinkers at the company used their assessment results as shorthand to either justify shitty behavior: "oh, person X is a 'High-D', of course that's why they co-opted the meeting, were abrasive, made everyone else feel small and insignificant". If you did not test with a high decisiveness level, it was absolutely brought up in promotion conversations. High-D, High-S etc. all became quick qualifiers to know where someone's career was headed.

Knowing strong dominance was likely an attribute valued by the company, I took the assessment with that in mind, resulting in a high dominance level (I'm probably middle of the road). That it was so easy to game made me loose all respect in their application of these assessments.

[briantakita]

These are more like frameworks for imagining & interacting with the complexities of reality. Similar to an interactive Philosophy. Worldviews cannot be avoided & nobody holds a purely objective viewpoint...anyone who claims to hold an purely objective viewpoint is a liar or delusional.

[mistermann]

> anyone who claims to hold an purely objective viewpoint is a liar or delusional.

Is this purely objective? Can you think of no exceptions, under any scenarios?

[kelseyfrog]

Confusing the subjective for the objective is a widely studied phenomenon. It's called reification and people generally deny doing it. There's a strong ego defense mechanism that raises when it's pointed out that shuts down conversation.

[mistermann]

The utterly bizarre things is how so many (I would say, the VAST majority) smart people are unable to overcome it when discussing certain subjects.

Like sure, I can certainly understand the initial incident, heuristics are a bitch...but what is so bizarre is that when people are in this state, there seems to be literally nothing that can draw them out of it. I have done many, many thousands of experiments in this area, it is uncanny.