Studying for an IQ Test

[DV8]

Studying for an IQ test. Lying on a job interview. "Creatively padding" your curriculum vitae. These things seem dumb to me.

Today, I took an in-depth psychological evaluation for a position in the Royal Dutch Airforce Intelligence, and I talked to a psychologist for about an hour. After some time evaluating the conversation and some personality tests I had taken, they told me that they simply didn't have the time to go into some things that were left uncovered, but were necessary to come to a conclusion if I would or would not be fit for the position, and thus I have to come back in a week for an even more in-depth position.

After talking to Eva about the undecided result, and telling her that I had been completely open, honest and forthcoming about my life, my ideas and my reasons for applying, she told me that I should've perhaps been a bit less honest, and telling them a bit what they wanted to hear.

Now that makes no sense to me, just like studying for an IQ test, or lying on a job application makes no sense to me. Why put yourself in a position, or in a job, where people expect something of you, that you can't deliver? Why is it so common place for people to creatively pad their curriculum vitae? What do you do when you, through dishonesty, manage to land yourself the position you want? How do you uphold that ruse?

[Eva]

After talking to Eva about the undecided result, and telling her that I had been completely open, honest and forthcoming about my life, my ideas and my reasons for applying, she told me that I should've perhaps been a bit less honest, and telling them a bit what they wanted to hear.

Assuming that your desire to get this job is greater than your desire to be absolutely honest - which is impossible anyways, but you're very familiar with my stance on objectivity.

Now that makes no sense to me, just like studying for an IQ test, or lying on a job application makes no sense to me. Why put yourself in a position, or in a job, where people expect something of you, that you can't deliver?

Because the things you're asked at in interview or in an IQ test are rarely the things you'll need to deliver once working. Yes, your employer will expect a certain level of intelligence. But if you suck at the math part of an IQ test, does that mean you can't be a good Customer Service rep?

What do you do when you, through dishonesty, manage to land yourself the position you want? How do you uphold that ruse?

There's no ruse to uphold. Unless you bluntly state you're able to do something you're not, there is no ruse. All you've done is present yourself in a good light. What you do when you land the job, is learn. You apply the skills you already have and learn the ones you don't. I don't advocate downright lying - at any time - but presenting yourself favorably at an interview is no sin in my eyes.

[Jestyr]

It also depends, I think, on how well you can separate your beliefs from your actions.

I mean, let's say you had some belief, thought or character trait that made you 'wrong' for the job in their eyes - but that you /knew/ you would be able to put this issue aside or overcome it and do the job they asked of you?

If they uncovered your issue, they would be naturally skeptical of your ability to do the job as stated, because they'd see it as a dealbreaker. But you /know/ that you can hold one mental position and act a different way, with no problems.

Isn't it reasonable, under those circumstances, to conceal your true situation from them - in that one regard - and tell them what they want to hear?

[Vralkie]

Don't forget the other reason to embellish the truth, fib, pad, optimize, update, and downright lie through your teeth to get a job. Everyone else that's also applying for the job will be too. If you don't, you'll be at a disadvantage to all of the other applicants...

That's what lying does in a free market... Enjoy...

[MooCow]

Also keep in mind, that those psychologists aren't stupid. If you try to tell them what you *think* they want to hear, they can often tell.

When my father was in the Air Force, they gave him a psych exam for one of the assignments they were considering him for. He answered all their question in the manner he thought they wanted. They crunched on it for a few days then called him back, and told him they were going to go through the test again.... and this time they would appreciate him answering honestly and not as he thought they wanted.

anyways... that's my useless tidbit....

MooCow
The useless cow

[Instant Cash]

The useless cow

yup, that says it all

[Jestyr]

Also keep in mind, that those psychologists aren't stupid. If you try to tell them what you *think* they want to hear, they can often tell.

Often, not always. They're only human; every human can be played.

[Ampere]

Wow, thats really hard. Do you be forthright and honest, or lie or "pad" the truth?

I mean everyone I hope would generally like to be an honest person.. I assume my friends are telling the truth exclusively. As far as jobs go...that is another affair. I could never tell an outright lie on an application, test, interview. Lies are too easily found out and then you are unable to do the job and hasta la vista...no more job.

I think a certain amount of fudging is commonplace and I believe the HR departments expect that to a certain limited degree.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, i'm saying it is reality. And Jes is right...Psychs are just people: they get duped daily.

[Nightsky]

I agree with deev on this one. It's stupid to forge a bit on the resume or try to pull some corners on an IQ test. I've sort of found out the hard way with my current job. Yes, I make good money at it. To be perfectly honest, I BSed my way through part of the interview to ge what I wanted, this job. I wanted this job, I shaved some of my personality down so I would have an acceptable attitude. In truth, I don't like this job much better than my last one. true, the money is a lot better, but I'm not happy at work. In the end, I'll probably do what several of my friends have suggested: milk it for the money for a while, put some stuff back in savings. Don't settle for doing something you're going to hate every single morning you wake up. Sound advice, makes sense to me. So now all I'm doing is putting money back and biding my time until what I really want to do comes along.

[Kunan]

Studying for an IQ test. Lying on a job interview. "Creatively padding" your curriculum vitae. These things seem dumb to me.

Heh. This is very open. Should be fun.

What's wrong with studying for an IQ test?
Let's assume a few things:

-The test, according to reputation, gauges your relative intelligence.

-Intelligence is a very complex thing, as opposed to a simple D&D statistic.
The test will, therefore, have to simplify things.

-Either the test does this properly, or it does not.

-Being intelligent is a desirable.

If the test is truly accurate, and you can do certain things that will improve your score, then there is nothing wrong with studying for it, because it will improve your intelligence, which is a good thing.

If the test is inaccurate, it is possible that it will judge unfairly and against your favor, either because it undervalues certain abilities that you have, or because it's just plain bad. Here, studying for it prevents you from being shortchanged by a flawed test that is nonetheless taken seriously in some circles. In addition, it will either improve skills you already have, or help you develop ones you do not; in either case, this is a good thing.

So there is nothing wrong with studying for an IQ test. It's a form of self improvement, and it's only even questionable if you have some kind of moral damnation attached to min/maxing.


We'll take a different approach to lying on a job interview: People are dishonest to begin with.

Let's create a hypothetical person. We'll call her Sally, because it's a nice, generic name. Sally's resume says, in rather vague terms, that she is good with people, computers, and a few other things. This is not surprising, since people generally like to think they are good at things, even if they aren't. (In America, something like 87% of the population think that they are above average drivers.) This is a natural inclination, and you'll have a damn hard time stopping people from doing it. Further, it says that she's worked for three years in marketing and worked as a secretary for a law firm. These are perfectly factual pieces of information, but they lead the non-skeptical to think that she has actually acquired some abilities and information from her experience, which could be in no way related to the truth. A lot of interviewers would think this, though, which can lead to Sally being hired for having skills she really doesn't.

Resume's are processed first by a mind that has certain tendencies to over-value itself, even if it is being "honest." They are then processed by people who have a good chance of not being very miserly with giving out credit. They are inherently inaccurate documents. Then where do we draw the line for their inaccuracy? Should people who have unusually low self-evaluations be taken at their word for their abilities? How about people who have unusually high ones? If you happen to have an accurate view of your own abilities, shouldn't you be allowed to embellish a little to keep yourself on the same level as people with your skills who claim to have more? You shouldn't penalize people for not having inflated egos, right?

Of course, this doesn't mean that it's perfectly all right to fill a resume with bold-faced lies. Just that they cannot be expected to have more than an extremely vague picture of a person's abilities. They are inherently flawed because peoples perceptions of themselves and others are inherently flawed.

What this boils down to is this: Being perfectly honest when you are interviewed is a nice ideal. However, in a practical sense, because of imperfections in analysis and the presence of people who really are bold-faced liars, you shouldn't sweat a little embellishment - don't if it really bothers you, but go ahead if you really want to - you're probably not giving anyone a perfectly true and honest picture anyway.

[Anguirel]

In America, something like 87% of the population think that they are above average drivers.

In America, 2 people per capita make up statistics to support themselves. I do recall reading about a survey of MIT freshan in which 90% of the respondants siad they'd be in the top half of their class, and 60% expected to be in the top 10%. At the same time as this survey was taken, the freshman drop out rate was fairly high (IIRC, and I probably don't, 1 in 10 did not graduate from MIT, though they may have gone elsewhere). But that's not important...

Lying at a job interview is, indeed, stupid. OTOH, volunteering irrelevant information "for the sake of honesty" is equally stupid. If they don't ask you about it directly, and you don't think it will impact your ability to do the job, there's no reason they need to know, for example, that you post on Bulldrek.

Padding a resume is stupid. OTOH, filling a resume with irrelevant information when you can focus it effectively is equally stupid. If you have had 20 different jobs previously, when applying to an engineering firm you should probably only list those jobs which demonstrate your ability to do engineering. The burger flipping job from highschool just isn't particularly important. If you only have a single previous job, but you were the president of your school's engineering club, that may well be more useful than listing the burger flipping job as well. Rather than considering it lying, consider it making their job easier... you're only giving them what they need to know in order to hire you, and leaving anything extraneous out.

Finally, if you're in for a psych review I think it is most reasonable to be perfectly honest. There's no reason to lie, prevaricate, or even direct answers toward anything in particular. If you're stable, you'll probably get the job. If you aren't, you'll probably still get the job, and you'll know that you can use a little therapy. If you're not and you don't get the job, you'll probably be put away for a while because you need more than a little therapy.

[Kunan]

In America, 2 people per capita make up statistics to support themselves.

Well, that one I got from a report a read a couple months back. I could look for it, if I had time, but I have a renfest to go to in a few minutes.

[Anguirel]

In America, 2 people per capita make up statistics to support themselves.

Well, that one I got from a report a read a couple months back. I could look for it, if I had time, but I have a renfest to go to in a few minutes.

Don't take that too seriously... I like poking fun at statistics. Did you know that the vast majority of the people in the world have an above average (mean) number of legs? Assuming your statistic is correct, it's perfectly possible for all 87% of those people to be correct as long as the remaining 13% are absolutely atrocious drivers. Which sounds about right... I'd say about 1 person in 10 is a really bad driver.

[Nightsky]

Here's the thought, triggered by the last few posts.

An IQ test is to test how intelligent you are. Assuming the test is accurate. Assume the goal of an intelligent person is to get as high a score as possible. Thus an intelligent person pulls out every possible advantage they can muster to obtain a higher score. Studying, maybe a few white lies, or even finding a way to cheat. This all can improve an intelligent score. Assuming a higher score means more intelligent and that dishonest tactics serve to increase this score, it can be argued that being dishonest makes a person smarter.

[Ka0s 0verdrive]

[Anguirel]

Here's the thought, triggered by the last few posts.

An IQ test is to test how intelligent you are. Assuming the test is accurate. Assume the goal of an intelligent person is to get as high a score as possible. Thus an intelligent person pulls out every possible advantage they can muster to obtain a higher score. Studying, maybe a few white lies, or even finding a way to cheat. This all can improve an intelligent score. Assuming a higher score means more intelligent and that dishonest tactics serve to increase this score, it can be argued that being dishonest makes a person smarter.

Remove white lies, they have no place in an intelligence test...

An intelligent person will utilize every advantage available, and therefore one who studies will score higher, indicating that they are, indeed, more intelligent. Stubborn idiocy in the name of honesty remains idiocy. Or laziness.

One who finds a way to cheat is at least more intelligent than the test makers and test administrators (or knows someone who is, in any case), though a properly designed test should not enable cheating as a valid tactic.