|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 05/14/2002 : 05:50:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wait a minute, that sounds like it might also be good odds for employee hiring
Using something like this in employee hiring would be a travesty, along the same lines as using a Graphologist.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 06:18:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Wait a minute, that sounds like it might also be good odds for employee hiring
Using something like this in employee hiring would be a travesty, along the same lines as using a Graphologist.
I would recommend using a combination of phrenology, astrology, blood-group analysis and lie detector tests to be absolutely sure that you hire competent and loyal employees that will work well within in your team.
But seriously, nobody would do things like that anymore in our enlightened society, would they?
|
|
|
|
Blair Nekkid
New Member
Canada
20 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 08:21:52 [Permalink]
|
I did one of these years ago and was informed that I am ENTP. I hold the same high opinion of these sorters as I do of Astrology. They contain the same vague feel-good mush that makes people say "Yes, I am just like that."
Most of the sorting criteria is ambiguous. In order to complete the test you must chose between many revealing choices such as:
Q> Do you consider yourself: a good listener OR a good conversationalist?
A> How can you be a good conversationalist but not a good listener?
Q> With people are you usually more: firm than gentle OR gentle than firm?
A> paraphrase: are you cruel or weak?
Q> Which rules you more: your thoughts OR your feelings?
A> Are you Spock or Counselor Troi?
Q> Are you the kind of person who: is rather talkative OR doesn't miss much
A> You can't be both?
Q> Are you more often: a warm-hearted person OR a cool-headed person?
A> I find that both my heart and head tend to stay damn close to 98.6 degrees, but since I never have to pull an insulating bag over my heart and I do wear a hat in winter, cool headed would be the logical choice.
Q> Do you like writers who: say what they mean OR use metaphors and symbolism?
A> Is this something important like "how to kill the hungry tiger (the one that will enter the room in 12 seconds) with your bare hands" or just some fluff to read while swinging in a hammock and drinking beer?
Q> Which do you wish more for yourself: strength of will OR strength of emotion?
A> What the flaming hell are you talking about?
Q> Are you more interested in: what is actual OR what is possible?
A> As a computer consultant, I am frequently engaged to deliver things that are neither.
Q> Do you think of yourself as a: tough-minded person OR tender-hearted person?
A> Are you an asshole or a wimp?
I don't believe that this kind of white-coat voodoo is worth wasting money or time on. Unfortunately the decision to use these in the hiring process is usually made by someone with a Commerce degree and/or an MBA so scientific literacy is rather uncommon.
Cheers,
Blair
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 07:52:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The Random House Unabridged begins its definition of "religion" with the wordsquote:
Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe....
Uhhh . . . this sounds an awful lot like "science" to me.
(emphasis in the definition is mine).
Science has nothing to do with belief.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
I see your point, however:
In the very beginnings of any science (--or even an aspect of an already well-developed science--), all you've got are "beliefs". The goal of scientific inquiry is to turn those beliefs (--codified with such terms as "hypotheses" or "theories"--) into verifiable "scientific truths" (--which are, in fact, all too often, later found to be untrue or not-quite-true  ).
If I had to make a distinction between the very earliest religions and science, it would be that religions have little (--if any--) interest in turning their beliefs into verifiable facts/truths (--lest, of course, their "beliefs" are found to be untrue).
My thoughts, anyway.
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 11:39:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the very beginnings of any science (--or even an aspect of an already well-developed science--), all you've got are "beliefs".
I understand where you are coming from, but in the context of science vs. religion, this is an equivocation of the definition of the word "belief".
Science starts with observations, not beliefs.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 06:54:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Org wrote:
In the very beginnings of any science (--or even an aspect of an already well-developed science--), all you've got are "beliefs".
Tokyodreamer criticized:
I understand where you are coming from, but in the context of science vs. religion, this is an equivocation of the definition of the word "belief".
And finally:quote:
Tokyodreamer polished off as a coup de grace with:
Science starts with observations, not beliefs. (emphasis added by Org)
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
You are, of course, correct that science starts with observation(s); but, then, so do most [truthful, honest] religions.
In almost every case, however, scientific observations are accumulated into a belief (--called hypothesis or theory--but, then "What's in a name?"--) which then is, if possible, tested and, if the belief/hypothesis/theory passes the testing process, inferences are made from the structure of the proposed belief-system which are then also tested (--often merely by seeking further observation, as was done, for example, with the recent "bending of light by gravity" belief/theory).
I continue to claim--without meaning to quibble in any way--that the difference between the very earliest religious beliefs and the very earliest scientific beliefs is nil;--it is only later on that scientific processes diverge from those of religion.
(--Or, to say it more exactly: "that science progresses dynamically from its earliest observation-thence-belief, whereas religion remains static".) [I am (--perhaps incorrectly--) using the words "static" and "dynamic" as in the technical sense from theoretical-mechanics.]
While all this may sound nit-picky or as near-trivial equivocation, I think otherwise: I am saying that in their very beginnings, "science" and "religion" are the same; that they later diverge; and, so!, that overall process may be cyclic (--as so many process are, the alternative being a singularity-style "blow up"--) and may eventually converge to the degree where, as Choice #3 puts it, science subsums religion.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff
[Edited by C. Org to correct a trivial grammatical error and to add a final, summarizing thought.]
Edited by - Computer Org on 05/17/2002 07:12:18 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 08:02:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer >this is an equivocation of the definition of the word "belief".
quote:
In almost every case, however, scientific observations are accumulated into a belief (--called hypothesis or theory--but, then "What's in a name?"--) which then is, if possible, tested ....
No, TD is correct. You seem to fail to understand how science works. It is the exact opposite of religion.
The definition my dictionary gives for belief is 1. an acceptance of something as true. 2. in theology, faith, or a firm persuasion of the truths of a religion
In science you always have to test. If it isn't possible to test something then you can't say that that something actually is. There is no acceptance that anything is true without testing therefore there is no room for "belief" in science.
To say belief/hypothesis/theory is meaningless.
An hypothesis is a proposition that you take for granted in order to draw a conclusion. It is an assumption for the purposes of argument not something that has been proved.
A belief is something that you don't look for proof for.
A theory is never an hypothesis but is a systematic statement of principles. An already proven fact.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 10:09:52 [Permalink]
|
At 2478 pages, "My dictionary is bigger than your dictionary, Slater!"  In seriousness: Until we get one common dictionary (--and do we really want to do that?--), we will always have problems with conflicting definitions. quote:
Slater wrote:
There is no acceptance that anything is true without testing therefore there is no room for "belief" in science.
I am reminded of someone in the office next to mine. He used to quickly write down a blackboard full of math then stand back and ask himself "Do I believe this?"
I suppose that in this context, your statement is correct. On the other hand, while he could fill an entire blackboard in 5-6 minutes (--he wrote big--), it usually took me an hour or two to write down a single line. (--I don't remember ever filling an entire blackboard.--) I never asked myself "Do I believe this?"; I never tested anything that I had committed to writing. Yet I almost always got fewer grading-scribbles than he did. (He often turned in more problems than I did, however.  ) (He also got his doctorate and, last I heard, was working in biometrics at U.Fla.--he was a good scientist-engineer. )
I just followed one simple rule: Don't write it down unless it's true.
No testing required.
(I concede, though, that many people do not consider mathmatics to be science. I am not one of those however: I believe that science is mathematics.)
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 19:47:11 [Permalink]
|
Computer Org> “In the very beginnings of any science (--or even an aspect of an already well-developed science--), all you've got are "beliefs". The goal of scientific inquiry is to turn those beliefs (--codified with such terms as "hypotheses" or "theories"--) into verifiable "scientific truths" (--which are, in fact, all too often, later found to be untrue or not-quite-true ).”
No. The beginning of science is not belief. TD already said what the beginning of science is.
A scientific theory starts with a natural occurrence or pattern. Based on what is already established, a theory is created to explain the natural phenomena.
“You (TD) are, of course, correct that science starts with observation(s); but, then, so do most [truthful, honest] religions.”
So are there untruthful dishonest religions? What's the difference? And how do an atheist tell them apart?
And that religions starts with observations and an attempt to explain them, does not make them science. You said science starts with belief. It doesn't.
A scientific theory needs to take into account existing tested science. The mathematics used in a scientific theory is not a matter of belief. When Albert Einstein made the Special Theory of Relativity, he didn't just sit down and write some equations. He took into consideration the problems with Newtons physics at the time (around 1905), and the latest advances in mathematics.
Observation is not belief. Belief is accepting something with no shred of evidence.
Math is the “language” of the Universe. And it did start with observations of the sort “How do I describe a circle without drawing it?”.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 21:31:16 [Permalink]
|
Lars_H
First off, great post. It contained relevent information, a honest appraisal based on more than a "preformed" opinion, and some room for possiblity. Kudos!
I am reculant to claim that we are all individuls and all special in our own way. But I have found that when you look at people indivudaly you find that there is much more variety than those tests allow for.
Of course there is variety in all of us. I have never stated that any method of "stereotyping" is going to solve the worlds problems. But then, on the other hand, If I was a career counselor or a social worker, I would find very little in the way of people systems endorsed by skeptics, if in fact any actually exist that skeptics agree with. For lack of better options, enter Keirsey.
The words you are looking for are not optimsm and pessimism, but realism gulibility.
When there is a lack of statistical fact, or no proven alternatives, shooting down all of the systems is pessimism. Of course, anyone here can tell me of a system for hiring people that is not based on general stereotyping, please let me know.
Generalizations only have any value at all when you are talking about a sufficient number of cases. They are almost worthless when trying to make observations about individuals.
By this, you are telling me that general knowledge is useless at the individual level? Why do you think that?
The Skeptic Friends are ESTJ - Supervisor Guardians.
The profile linked above contains a lot of descriptions in wich the Skeptic Friends will surely recognize themselves. It also contaisn descriptions like this:
... Like all the Guardians, ESTJs worry a good deal about society falling apart, morality decaying, standards being undermined, traditions being lost, and they do all they can to preserve and to extend the institutions that embody social order. ...[/i]
But I think we can ignore those parts and concentrait on the parts that validate our theory.
Kudos Lars. It appears true skeptic is at work here..... Responses like this one are rare.
PS. Spamorama, I have psychic powers and can predict wether a coin will fall heads or tails. Sure it only works 50% of the time, and sure that is shitty pysics percentage but these odds are plenty good in vegas where (almost) all games of chance have a less then 50% in your favour. Want to hire me for employee screening?
Hmmm, if you are only right 50% of the time, you will cost me as much as you will help me. I'm more interested in forward motion.
Now, if you could predict the coin 60% of the time, you would be the most famous man on earth and get "Randy's" dollars to spend (I believe it was Randy that offers the reward for proof of the paranormal). Oh, but you might have a hoard of skeptics on your back for quite some time making sure that you weren't faking the results or cheating somehow....
Thanks for the post,
Mike.
|
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 22:10:30 [Permalink]
|
Blair
Q> Do you consider yourself: a good listener OR a good conversationalist?
A> How can you be a good conversationalist but not a good listener?
Some people like to listen, others to be heard. I like to be heard and catch myself all of the time cutting people off, or finishing others sentences. But I know that this is not good, and I am working on it.
Q> With people are you usually more: firm than gentle OR gentle than firm?
A> paraphrase: are you cruel or weak?
Good to know. Depends on whether you need a caregiver or an army general.
Q> Which rules you more: your thoughts OR your feelings?
A> Are you Spock or Counselor Troi?
Good to know. I like beta testers that understand the logic behind the products they are testing and feel good when they use their brains to locate problems. I don't like testers that cannot understand the products, and hate the job because of how they "feel" the whole time they do it.
Q> Are you the kind of person who: is rather talkative OR doesn't miss much
A> You can't be both?
Of course you can be both. You can be both on any of these questions. But if you have a preference either way, you might move the talkative person into a sales job and appoint person that doesn't miss much as a supreme court judge.
Q> Are you more often: a warm-hearted person OR a cool-headed person?
A> I find that both my heart and head tend to stay damn close to 98.6 degrees, but since I never have to pull an insulating bag over my heart and I do wear a hat in winter, cool headed would be the logical choice.
Hmmm, I would guess this is sarcasm. Either that, or you do read things a little to literally. Me, I would want a emergency surgeon that was cool-headed if I was in an accident. But then I would want to be taken care of while I healed by a warm-hearted person.
Q> Do you like writers who: say what they mean OR use metaphors and symbolism?
A> Is this something important like "how to kill the hungry tiger (the one that will enter the room in 12 seconds) with your bare hands" or just some fluff to read while swinging in a hammock and drinking beer?
My library is full of books that allow me to learn more. My favorite books are articulate and literal. My wife, she loves abstract poetry. When she reads me a line that she thinks is amazing, I just nod my head and smile because she enjoyed it.
Is fluff Tom Clancy? Nope. He uses more acronyms and complex literal descriptions than most physics professors. Is Popular Mechanics fluff? Nope. The question is, can you swing in the hammock and read a harlequin romance while you swirl a beer??
Q> Which do you wish more for yourself: strength of will OR strength of emotion?
A> What the flaming hell are you talking about?
Hmmm. That is a bad question. I'm not sure what is meant by that. Good catch.
Q> Are you more interested in: what is actual OR what is possible?
A> As a computer consultant, I am frequently engaged to deliver things that are neither.
That's your job you are talking about. What interests "you" more? I would say that skeptics typically debate the "possible" with information that is "actual".
Q> Do you think of yourself as a: tough-minded person OR tender-hearted person?
A> Are you an asshole or a wimp?
Again, good to know depending on the role you will play. In a few circumstances I would like Mike Tyson in my corner, in a few others, perhaps the Dalai Lama. Most of the time though, I am trying to avoid both of these extreme types in the workplace, and would like a system to help me avoid hiring either. If a person answers "tough" to all of the questions like this one, but I am looking for a client relations person, don't you think that this information could be valuable?
I don't believe that this kind of white-coat voodoo is worth wasting money or time on. Unfortunately the decision to use these in the hiring process is usually made by someone with a Commerce degree and/or an MBA so scientific literacy is rather uncommon.
Hmmm. I have a science degree myself, a 4th and 3rd class power engineering, and run my own highly technical software company. My problem is not that I am a pinko-liberal, it is actually the opposite. Although I understand technical things very well, it's people that I find hard to understand.
I have a great family, and great friends, don't get me wrong. But it is typical for people to hire others exactly like them, when in fact, diversity is often the key to success.
What kind of innovation team would the members of this Skeptic forum make? How would they be as brain-stormers? But then, on the other hand, what if you took the ideas of the "loosely creative" thinkers and then ran each of these ideas past the members of this skeptic forum to test the validity!! Bingo, a kick ass system.... Creative thinkers with no boundries, and group of analytical geniuses to keep reality firmly in check.
Might even result in success 60% of the time... I like those odds.
Thanks for the post,
Mike.
|
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 22:25:32 [Permalink]
|
Spock:
Thanks for the great information, and your opinions. This Keirsey stuff is new to me, and I realize that I am probably going through a "wow, look at the possibilties" phase that you have already gone through. It has been valuable to me so far though, mostly because I was under the impression that most people are capable of anything, if they just put their minds to it. As you are probably well aware, this is not a universal truth. It is very unlikely that I could be a heavyweight boxer at 5'9" and 170lbs, and the same seems true for personality limitations.
The problem for me is, that most people don't know what they want. They also research generic ways of handling interviews, and I am not allowed to ask "certain types" of questions when hiring. This adds confusion and complication to the hiring process. I am looking for some way to cut through the confusion without hiring/firing people and learning through painful experience.
Its nice to hear from someone that took a good hard look at this system before.
Again, thanks for the post.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2002 : 15:10:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the very beginnings of any science (--or even an aspect of an already well-developed science--), all you've got are "beliefs". The goal of scientific inquiry is to turn those beliefs (--codified with such terms as "hypotheses" or "theories"--) into verifiable "scientific truths" (--which are, in fact, all too often, later found to be untrue or not-quite-true ).
I think the problem here lies in the ambiguity of the word 'belief', and the motivation for that belief.
Religion requires nothing more than an attribution and an appeal to authority to explain observed phenomena. Therefore, belief has become faith.
Science requires an observation, and a collection of evidence, followed by logical reasoning in that the conclusions must ollow the premises. Belief now is evidentiary.
Both systems are attempts to explain the mysteries of our universe, and require some type of belief, but the similarity ends there.
As for personality traits, I took the quiz out of curiosity, and came up with artisan, and that told me nothing at all.
My personality tends to conform to my environment. Work requires me to act in a manner that I care not to follow at home. For instance, the way I make decisions. I make decisions at work based on the the evidence and the situation, with the objective being to reduce down time, lower cost, increase productivity, and make it safe. Work is not democratic. Since my job is specialized, my decisions are seldom up for review by others until after the fact. At home, we make decisions based on the collective needs and desires of three autonomous and emotional human beings.
Even in a job interview, I will attempt to make my personality appear to fit what I believe to be most appealing to the interviewer. Can anybody really know a person in a job interview, considering, of course, that the person being interviewed follows all the rules of interview ettiquette, and has, at the least, rudimentary social skills?
Anyway, that personality test set me off immediately, when it failed to mention labor, or trades in it's work descriptions. Sorry, I guess it's called trade pride. I too often get the impression that those who use their bodies and minds to perform work are often overlooked. But, what would I know--I'm just a poor uneducated member of the "huddled masses."
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2002 : 17:40:32 [Permalink]
|
Ya know there is a place here in San Francisco that gives personality readings every bit as accurate as the ones on this test, and for about the same cost. It's called the Hunan K. Restaurant on Geary Street. Instead of having to read a book you get Pork Chow Mein and Pot Stickers. The reading even comes inside a tastey little cookie.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2002 : 20:10:45 [Permalink]
|
Personality tests.
May I suggest reading
http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html
on that subject.
Quite interesting I'd say :)
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
