Psychometric Tests & faking them

I'll be taking a psychometric test at work in the near future, although it's not linked to career progression or the job exactly. I suppose it could be linked with development but personally I think it's probably just an exercise in spending money on something that someone finds vaguely interesting. For background I work in a fairly large organisation and in a department particularly dominated by management types with soft skills - there's a lot of meetings, BS, blue sky thinking, run-it-up-a-flagpole-and-see-if-it-flies f*ckaboutery.

Anyway, I've done a couple before (I think they were Briggs-Myers or variations on that) so I'm comfortable enough doing them and it doesn't really bother me. However, I know pretty much what the results will be and I thought for a laugh I'd try and fake the test. I'm not looking to create a completely different personality result, or one that I desire, but rather to create something completely undefinable which veers all over the place. I was thinking of not even reading the questions and multiple choice answers and instead just randomly picking my responses so I wouldn't be aware of what I was answering either consciously or sub-consciously. Anyone got any better ideas though?

The whole department will be doing this so it's not just me and frankly I don't expect any kind of action to arise from the exercise. Hence my cavalier attitude towards it. Anyway, would be interested in other peoples thoughts on these types of tests and any anecdotal tales of people faking them as well. Funnily enough (and boringly enough) when I did the tests previously in another organisation I came back with an almost perfect profile for the work I do - suppose that's good but it was also a bit dull.

What you need is a spot of method acting. Pick a character and try and channel them.

Ask yourself. for example, how would Noel Fielding approach this question?

What you need is a spot of method acting. Pick a character and try and channel them.

Ask yourself. for example, how would Noel Fielding approach this question?

Bright colours & random words. That is all Noel Fielding has.

As for the tests, we did them at work earlier this year. Actually quite enjoyed them, found the Briggs-Myers quite useful really. It helps give you a perspective into how other people work or process things. Highlighted a few things in myself and those around, it certainly has helped the way I work with my team.

Like most of these things, you get out what you put in.

A previous employer made all the management do the Belbin Personality Tests. I genuinely thought it was a load of crap, but it ended up describing my role pretty well.

I'm a shaper, apparently*.

* Belbin euphemism for aggressive shíts that drag things to completion, even if everyone else is kicking and screaming

I work in the software industry and a part that touches on psychometric testing. We typically see these used as part of a selection process or as part of a culling process (More common when there is a merger or acquisition in the pipeline). Additionally, high potential employees or future leaders are sometimes put down this route to better understand their capabilities and potential.

So the only thing I would say ....is be very careful, you could be doing yourself out of a promotion or even a job.

These things are ridiculously clever, so to achieve what you want, randomly picking answers, is about the only way you could do it. Your company is doing this for a reason and will be making a fairly significant investment to do so. Can't see it's worth a gamble, especially when their is no "Upside" to you, if you succeed.

Thanks for responses so far. I agree that they're not entirely without merit and can be quite accurate (to an extent at least).

I've still got an underlying dislike of them but that's probably because they shouldn't really be telling you anything you don't already know - I'd expect managers to also have some awareness of how to manage different personality types as well. It also smacks a little of managing and dealing with people by rote - so the book says if I'm dealing with personality type X then my response to them should be this etc. Obviously this type of information can be helpful and improve people but I think sometimes people can look at it a bit prescriptively and resulting attitudes can come across as a bit false.

I'll bear in mind the potential downside but I'm still going to have a bit of fun with it. I'll probably still do the completely random responses just to see what happens.

Gemmnel has it pretty much spot on imo. The fact that you said "when I did the tests previously in another organisation I came back with an almost perfect profile for the work I do" should flag up the risks of arsing around. You dont want to come out as a perfect librarian if for example you're in a sales job.

The other thing to be aware of is that many tests have questions designed to catch out people not answering truthfully or saying what they think the company want to hear. For example "have you ever stolen anything?" (everybody has at some point but some people still put 'no').

Gemmnel has it pretty much spot on imo. The fact that you said "when I did the tests previously in another organisation I came back with an almost perfect profile for the work I do" should flag up the risks of arsing around. You dont want to come out as a perfect librarian if for example you're in a sales job.

 

The other thing to be aware of is that many tests have questions designed to catch out people not answering truthfully or saying what they think the company want to hear. For example "have you ever stolen anything?" (everybody has at some point but some people still put 'no').

He's right, but the catch out questions are nt there to fidn out if you are arsing around, but to establish a baseline. There is a way to change the outcome of these, but you would need to know the baseline questions, the control questions and the matrices they are using. Too much info required, and too much info to fit in here.

Personally I wouldn't bother as all the random answering of questions gives is too wide a field to establish anything worthwile so they will label you a pain in the rear who has mucked about.

Use these extensively - when someone has been fecking about the system tells us that this might be the case and recommends the user retakes the test. Save yourself the bother and do it right first time.

I'm interested to know what everyone's profile is now!

I'm ENTJ (Myers-Briggs) - completed twice, officially, same result both time.

I'm interested to know what everyone's profile is now!

 

I'm ENTJ (Myers-Briggs) - completed twice, officially, same result both time.

Luke Skywalker, apparently. I've never really watched Star Wars.

Just call me Yoda.

I always knew I was a princess!

Alternatively:

ENFP.

Someone's gotta do it.

A previous employer made all the management do the Belbin Personality Tests. I genuinely thought it was a load of crap, but it ended up describing my role pretty well.

 

I'm a shaper, apparently*.

 

* Belbin euphemism for aggressive shíts that drag things to completion, even if everyone else is kicking and screaming

Belbin is not a personality test as such but team role based on perception (self and others). It is a very useful tool and can help teams get a result!

psychometrics tests have some check questions which do not count in the test but act as aid to investigator if the person completing the test is bull****ting, so if you do the random answers, this may show up.

Belbin is not a personality test as such but team role based on perception (self and others). It is a very useful tool and can help teams get a result!

 

psychometrics tests have some check questions which do not count in the test but act as aid to investigator if the person completing the test is bull****ting, so if you do the random answers, this may show up.

Wasn't aware of the distinction, but they are fascinating. Did the Myers Briggs one too and it's uncanny. Friendships, employee traits (at various levels) - even parenthood - all down to a tee, warts and all.

Clever beings, we humans. Or alternatively, a bit uniform. Maybe both.

I always remember doing one and answering what I felt was the truth that it didn't annoy me in the slightest if supermarket move their products. Actually realised that was completely untrue and drives me ****ing mental.

Oh and for the record I was ISTP which I suppose makes me Chewbacca or Harry Potter type. I wonder if it's only us logic type people fiercely driven to see if we can break the test?

Myers-Briggs is ok, although generally found to be too limited in its model.

Its all about Complex Metaprograms these days.

Wasn't aware of the distinction, but they are fascinating. Did the Myers Briggs one too and it's uncanny. Friendships, employee traits (at various levels) - even parenthood - all down to a tee, warts and all.

 

Clever beings, we humans. Or alternatively, a bit uniform. Maybe both.

Yeah, I found the results eerily close to the truth.

It is interesting how much influence and credence is conferred to the MBTI test when you discover its origins. It was devised by a mother and daughter team (Katherine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers) in the early 20th century based almost entirely on a meeting with, and the works of Carl Jung. Neither woman had any formal training in the scientific method - they were, effectively, dilettantes. Now, the interesting thing is that Jung's theories were heavily influenced by astrology and alchemy and these influences were incorporated, virtually wholesale, into the final MBTI instrument.

So, all you guys doing the MBTI test are having your results analysed based on alchemy and astrology. You may as well look at your star sign and use that as an indicator. To my mind, MBTI is a crock of ****.

It is interesting how much influence and credence is conferred to the MBTI test when you discover its origins. It was devised by a mother and daughter team (Katherine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers) in the early 20th century based almost entirely on a meeting with, and the works of Carl Jung. Neither woman had any formal training in the scientific method - they were, effectively, dilettantes. Now, the interesting thing is that Jung's theories were heavily influenced by astrology and alchemy and these influences were incorporated, virtually wholesale, into the final MBTI instrument.

 

So, all you guys doing the MBTI test are having your results analysed based on alchemy and astrology. You may as well look at your star sign and use that as an indicator. To my mind, MBTI is a crock of ****.

I'm an Aries. The missus is a Cancer, and the eldest daughter is a Scorpio.

We're all ENFP's.

I'm an Aries. The missus is a Cancer, and the eldest daughter is a Scorpio.

 

We're all ENFP's.

Whooooo! Aries rule

It is interesting how much influence and credence is conferred to the MBTI test when you discover its origins. It was devised by a mother and daughter team (Katherine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers) in the early 20th century based almost entirely on a meeting with, and the works of Carl Jung. Neither woman had any formal training in the scientific method - they were, effectively, dilettantes. Now, the interesting thing is that Jung's theories were heavily influenced by astrology and alchemy and these influences were incorporated, virtually wholesale, into the final MBTI instrument.

 

So, all you guys doing the MBTI test are having your results analysed based on alchemy and astrology. You may as well look at your star sign and use that as an indicator. To my mind, MBTI is a crock of ****.

Thank you Bath Saint - I knew there was a reason I don't like these things.

Thank you Bath Saint - I knew there was a reason I don't like these things.

I only know this because one of my colleagues wrote a paper on the topic. The reference is:

Case, P and Phillipson, G. (2004) Astrology, alchemy and retro-organization theory: an astro-genealogical critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Organization, 11:4, 473-495.

For info, the journal Organization is a very highly regarded journal in organizational theory - they've rejected a couple of submissions by me in the past :-(

I only know this because one of my colleagues wrote a paper on the topic. The reference is:

 

Case, P and Phillipson, G. (2004) Astrology, alchemy and retro-organization theory: an astro-genealogical critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Organization, 11:4, 473-495.

 

For info, the journal Organization is a very highly regarded journal in organizational theory - they've rejected a couple of submissions by me in the past :-(

Thanks for the info - I managed to download the paper and very good it is too. I've only had a quick read through and will give it another read later but it is interesting. Even better is one of the companies practising MBTI and mentioned in the paper is actually delivering the test to our department. I wonder if the practitioners we meet will be aware of it's roots? This could be quite good fun.....

Oh and hope you get something accepted soon.

ISTJ

I always get 'Team Player' which is descriptive of a dull person who kills threads

Well, was as rubbish as I expected it to be. I deliberately engineered my answers towards a desired outcome and got it so these things really aren't that hard to manipulate at all.

In the course of my research on these types of things I did come across the Forer Effect which was both interesting and relevant.