[doublebind]

Two years ago, I had a similar experience with Chainlink. I underwent hours of interviews and completed an extensive work assignment, only to be offered the job _after a personality test_. Simultaneously, I interviewed at a startup. There, I spent about an hour discussing my experience and providing feedback on their current system with the person who would become my manager.

I chose the startup, and it has been the best job decision I've ever made.

Personality tests can disclose a lot of personal information. It's unclear where this data might end up or who might have access to it. I detest this practice and consider it a major red flag.

(edit: typos)

[Beijinger]

This reminds me when I tried incredibly hard to get a tiny scholarship to study abroad in country X and got rejected. In fact, there were several rounds and I didn't even make the first one. My Prof. told me to go to country Y and I hesitated because of the immense administrative burden to apply again and since I was de facto not qualified for a postgraduate scholarship. But application was easy, I got it, and they stuffed me with money.

I always remember the words of my Professor: "Don't you know that everything where you have to invest a lot (I assume effort, time, money, energy) nothing ever comes out?

So if your IT job requires a letter of recommendation from the pope and even if you are able to get the letter, you are unlikely to get the job. :-)

[jstarfish]

Corollary experience: the more effort/time/money/energy you expend in a successful transaction, the more likely it is they'll impose a shitty condition at the end of it, expecting you to be too invested to challenge it.

[shermantanktop]

Weaponizing the sunk cost fallacy, once again. Just like a time-share condo pitch.

[namaria]

This reminds me of an investment maxim that has helped me a lot over the years:

You don't make a profit on the sell price. You make a profit on the buy price.

That's something I lot of people seem to not understand about investment, it's not about how high something can go. That's random chance. It's about how deep a discount you can find on something valuable. If you can't estimate what something might be worth, you're not investing, you're making a bet on things you don't understand.

[ipsento606]

> Personality tests can disclose a lot of personal information

In my experience the only thing personality tests disclose is how good the testee is at guessing which answers will be viewed most favorably

[nerdbert]

I assumed that's the point - can you see things like a "normal" person does?

[mewpmewp2]

So the goal is to avoid anyone on spectrum?

[lazide]

The goal is to get the answers they want without saying it. They want people who will naturally know ‘the right thing’ to do to get paid by them, without them having to say it.

Folks on a spectrum are usually that way because they’re bad at already knowing that - or unwilling/unable to say it naturally. For various reasons.

Which is why the spectrum covers ‘disorders’ (aka things that make life suck sometimes/most of the time) instead of ‘awesomenesses’.

That said, there are advantages and utility where one can find niches and ways to adapt most of the time.

Being the same/reacting the same as everyone else, tends to get you the same results as everyone else. For better or worse.

Mixing in with the herd offers a lot of protection, as long as the whole herd isn’t being stampeded off a cliff by a smarter adversary.

You’re unlikely to starve either, but you’d better be good at eating grass other people have already crapped on/next to.

[nitwit005]

These tests usually don't have a "normal" outcome, as they are intended to group people into categories.

[kqr]

Normal was a bad choice of words. "How well are you able to empathise with the organisation" might be a better phrasing.

[red-iron-pine]

how well are you able to guess what the test wants you to say, and game the system?

i remember doing these like 20 years ago when i got out out of the military and just needed a bartending job.

corp chain, had you take a bunch like "if I see an employee slacking off I'm 1) very offended, 2) slightly offended, 3) indifferent, 4) okay with it, or 5) very okay with it

it was obvious what answer they wanted, and empathy had nothing to do with it

[numpad0]

chaotic evil is a category.

[datavirtue]

This guy gets it.

[pbae]

IQ test with extra steps.

[everybodyknows]

When a measure becomes a target ...

[bloqs]

Personality tests are screening principally if you are Conscientious and Agreeable. The hack is: Suggest you answer every question to imply you are orderly, hardworking, calm, stable and cooperative with others.

[mewpmewp2]

Weren't disagreeable people more successful though?

[curtisblaine]

For themselves, not the organization they work in.

[lazide]

Notably, organizations are almost always led by disagreeable folks.

It’s a pain in the ass to lead disagreeable people.

Agreeable people are often terrible leaders, as they’ll as often lead a team off a cliff as say no. Or be unable to actually drive action among a group of disagreeing people.

leading often requires coming up with your own answer based on the circumstances you’re seeing - someone can’t ‘agree’ their way out of that.

That said, someone too disagreeable will just cause friction and internal issues all the time for no value add. Disagreeing with the right/proper thing to do is just being a pain in ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass.

Usually, the organization has settled on a middle ground somewhere for each level of it’s hierarchy.

Very top down organizations usually need very agreeable ‘bottom’ layers to do the grunt work. It has predictable consequences - good and bad.

There is a reason why militaries pride themselves on ‘breaking down’/‘rebuilding’ people in basic. And why officers almost always go through a separate process.

[bloqs]

All completely true. Neuroticism seems to be the most complex one for leaders...

[WalterBright]

> Personality tests can disclose a lot of personal information.

Only if you want it to. Answer in a way that suits your purpose.

[hinkley]

Part of being a grownup is coming around to the fact that if someone you just met clearly doesn't trust you, that's 95% about their issues, not yours.

Then it becomes a question not of whether you're 'worthy' of a job with these people, but whether you really want to walk into a place that is telegraphing this much paranoia.

I don't know how to gracefully bow out of the middle of an interview and I wish I did. What I do know is how to sandbag an interview, and I'm sure there are a few people out there who have poor opinions of me that are the direct result of my poor opinion of them.

Places with calm confidence during the interview process may be their own kind of delusional, but they may also be really great places to work, with a good sense of teamwork.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

> I don't know how to gracefully bow out of the middle of an interview

"Hey, thanks for taking the time to talk to me, guys, but I don't think this is a good fit. Let's cut our losses and give each other some time back. Bye."

Get up and walk out.

[JohnFen]

> I don't know how to gracefully bow out of the middle of an interview and I wish I did.

What I do is say something along the lines of "I believe that I would be a poor fit for this position and am withdrawing my application. Thank you for your time and consideration."

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

> Part of being a grownup is coming around to the fact that if someone you just met clearly doesn't trust you, that's 95% about their issues, not yours.

Trust is earned, not given.

part of the reason you feel as if you can trust them is because you don't have to trust them _fully_. You're protected by the system, life circumstances, etc. Put another way, it's easy for me to trust that someone I don't know will pay back the $20 they just borrowed because if they don't the damage to me is minimal, it's a hell of a lot harder for me to trust that someone will pay back $20k that they borrowed.

If someone isn't showing the level of trust you would expect it's generally two things.

1. That person is themselves untrustworthy and they view the world as if everyone is like them, or

2. That person doesn't feel as safe and protected by the systems in place as you do. Sometimes due to general anxiety, sometimes due to life experiences, etc.

Even someone in category 2 may show themselves to be untrustworthy because they're going to cross you due to a perceived slight or as a means of protecting themselves so 1 & 2 can often blend together.

But make no mistake, you don't trust them either, you just know they can't truly hurt you so it's safe to assume they're trustworthy. Trust is earned over time, not given.

For a personal anecdote, there's a developer here who had major problems with me, it got heated a few times to the point we both had to walk away from the conversation. He just took everything I said in such a negative light. We would talk it out and then it would happen again. And then it came out that he had medication for anxiety, my gf of 12 years has anxiety too so I understand it better than most I suspect.

Once I had that understanding I approached him differently and we have a great relationship now. Some if it was serious heart-to-heart conversations, some of it was my behavior changes. That combination and time has earned me his trust and earned him my trust. He'll very publicly challenge me and I never take it personally, I'll publicly challenge him and he doesn't take it personally either. Sometimes he'll contact me directly and tell me something I said looked bad to others and he helps me keep a lifeline into the team as a whole (I'm an architect).

I'm not saying it's all sunshine and roses but it's definitely a good working relationship now. I say this just to say be careful of dismissing people outright. Sometimes you have to but make sure you have to before you do.

[johnnyanmac]

Trust may be earned, but respect should be a default. These tests definitely don't respect you nor the company's time and values. But I guess someone had to feel useful (emphasis on "feel").

> I say this just to say be careful of dismissing people outright.

I'll give them the minimum amount of respect, but if I have to walk on eggshells just to do every day work communication, I'm going to trust them very little. I'm glad you worked it out, but most of the time you will never know their story (and you'd be cast as the bad guy if you pried to find it).