Have you ever wondered why your personality mattered when applying for a government job, or any job for that matter? Something like background checks or drug testing in Newtown PA can make sense because employers want to make sure they hire employees of good character. But what does a personality test uncover? Well, it makes sense to evaluate a potential employee based on his/her history of accomplishment and skills directly related to the task one is being hired to fulfill. I’d go as far as to say that almost every “rubric” or evaluation system in use today should be based on direct relationships, rather than indicators and generalizations; Science instead of opinions about what data means. But this is the ongoing problem in the US; people have been trained to misinterpret Science. Schools place more importance on opinion than truth these days. There’s nothing wrong with rubrics or stereotypes (statistics) as long as they are based on direct relationships. However, I see a bunch of rubrics and statistics that don’t measure anything but associations and opinions. And even if the statistics or stereotypes are true there are certain things that should never be decided by a majority of a republic and there are certain laws that should never exist. However, most of this is a conversation for another day.
Let’s just focus on personality tests, a clear stereotype, for now. Although stereotypes are essential for citizens making decisions in the moment as they are going about their daily business, stereotypes have no place in making laws or enacting consequences. Personality tests are designed based on how a statistically significant number of people respond to a multiple-choice question. Responses that represent the views of people are then categorized to reflect predicted behaviors. If this doesn’t sound like the exact opposite of every government ruling that has been forced on citizens since the social movement, I don’t know what does. The minorities who fall outside the stereotype are being punished for no reason. Additionally, when I am given a personality test, my beliefs and views are being categorized to predict my ability to perform the task and get along with others. In order to obtain a government job, I have to have the “right religious beliefs” to pass the personality test. All of these things are specifically against the American Constitution and philosophy.
The government is the biggest bigot that exists. It annoys the hell out of me every time I see a judge hand out a million dollar lawsuit to an employer for discrimination. I see no greater creator of double standards, discrimination, and religious beliefs than our current government. To add insult to injury, most of what the government does is based on insignificant statistics. Making laws because of stereotypes is bad enough, but making laws based on insignificant numbers is unfathomable; especially without any real relationship existing between the law and the desired effect. The number of examples of our government operating in this unconstitutional and irrational manner is something I want to talk about one day, but for now let us continue with personality testing and psychologists. My answer to a multiple-choice question has no bearing on how I will fulfill my job duties. If I’ve never been in trouble with the law and I’ve made it through 20 years of school with no complaints, then my personality should be just fine with the government. It seems that a handful of anonymous, respected teachers that taught me could do a lot better job of assessing my ability to work and get along with others. If people really wanted to end discrimination, the only evaluation for a job application would be achieved skills and accomplishments. There would be no need to identify name, race, age, or gender. Instant messenger interviews would be the norm and an employee would be selected solely on ability. Liberals don’t want this because then they wouldn’t be able to complain about discrimination and Republicans don’t want this because then they wouldn’t be able to hire their sons and keep it in the family. If we stop focusing on race and gender, all of these people making money on “sensitivity training” would be out of a job. So of course a sensitivity trainer’s major philosophy is that we have to be hypocritical and focus on race. It’s easy to paint a picture about how your ethnicity and parents are to blame for your problems. If our major and only philosophy is to focus on something, that something will never go away…
(uhh…job security for the sensitivity trainers… shout out to all my real Americans, African or European).
I love Marshawn Lynch and his attitude, I just had to do it, sorry about that.
Liberals kill me when they think they have some edge on scientific understanding because they believe in evolution. First off, I can believe in God and still acknowledge the effects of natural selection. Second, what does evolution have to do with anything we are ever arguing about? Agreeing with something that Science supports doesn’t make you all knowing. A person may be correct about one thing in Science but wrong about something else (that is why I got a 100 on the Science test and some people got a 50 or 60). The most important question to ask is does that one thing that could be true have anything to do with the argument at hand? Just because natural selection exists doesn’t mean I have to give up my guns, or pay more taxes to support people who don’t contribute to the system so the ruling class can continue to skim money from those taxes, or allow gay marriage. I find it ironic that liberals tote such a big scientific stick but don’t understand some simple concepts in Biology such as the difference between a male and a female. I don’t want to get into gay marriage here or my thoughts about it and I’m not stating that I’m for or against it (that’s for another day). I’m simply pointing out some contradictions in arguments and lack of relevant logic to prove or disprove the argument by people who supposedly have such good scientific ration. The only thing evolution supports is Capitalism, yet liberals oppose this idea. But once again we have people in contradiction with their own beliefs when it comes to making decisions about what should be done in each situation even though all of the situations are really the same.
I believe the biggest problem is the inability (or unwillingness) of people to distinguish between things that are the same and things that are different. One of the goals of this website is to get both sides to realize that they are more similar than different, but for some reason they allow the media to direct their attention to the differences that don’t really matter. I know we’ve all been in arguments that end in one person saying “it’s just different because…” No, it’s probably not different. It’s probably that they want to apply their logic only when it allows them to do things that they want to do. Therefore, they’re logic probably sucks and they just want to be a dictator instead of letting people make their own choices that don’t directly affect anyone. These people always think it should be the leader’s decision, except for when the leader disagrees with them. My point for the last two paragraphs is that people are not recognizing personality testing as an enforcement of religious beliefs and judgement based on indicators endorsed by an establishment. It is no different than the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago deciding what laws and people should be promoted based on their beliefs and observed stereotypes. This idea of government clergy using pseudo-Science to weed out government employees scares me. For that matter, anytime a psychologist enters the courtroom I’m scared. Americans are supposed to be judged using direct relationships not associations (i.e. shoot a basketball to prove you are a good shooter, or put a person in a challenging situation and observe his/her reactions).
It amazes me that Christianity is always under attack for being misused to sway weak minds into terrible acts or falsely accused of being the same as other ideologies that promote terrible acts. Persuasion is something that every person must face on a daily basis from a variety of beliefs. Killing in the name of Science or Jesus has no impact on the validity of the principles of either. Random actions have no impact on the validity of a set of principles because they are not related to those principles; whoever is doing the killing is not following the principles of either Science or Jesus. Last I checked, you are not allowed to randomly assign blame for your actions (although many courts are allowing people to do this now with the help of psychologist, government clergy). To illustrate what I am saying: If somebody says they are killing in my name even though my principles are completely against it, does that mean I am somehow to blame or that my principles that weren’t followed are somehow flawed just because people use my name? And the truth of the matter is that I don’t know of a time in history where evil was committed in the name of Jesus. Yes, Christians have killed in the name of governments misusing religion or by following other philosophies outside of their primary religion (separation of church and state means hold true to your principles); this is why our founding fathers wanted to limit government power and distinguish between religious laws (regardless of religious origin) verses necessary laws to create free thought and opportunity. Further, certain laws have no business existing in America, even with “scientific proof” or “religious proof”.
On a side note, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that communities must give up their beliefs or practices in God to satisfy different beliefs or unbelievers. They just can’t make any laws that punish any minority for not believing or vice versa. Yet, the government takes prayer, an act that has no direct effect on anyone (much less effect than gay marriage I might add), out of school because beliefs can’t be forced on anyone. But it promotes personality testing to see if my response to a multiple-choice question gives me government-approved ideologies to obtain work. And to further stir your curiosity, I will point out that Science is just as much of an evolving theory as the New Testament from the Old Testament. Things that I was once taught as truth in science class are now known to be false. Faith also exists in Science because teachers taught me things 50 years ago as truth that have since been proven wrong. Scientists have faith that their principles will lead them to the truth, but quite often their current theories are wrong and become illogical. In 50 years when it becomes OK to eat red meat again, will they also realize that their personality tests were wrong? So if a community wants to teach religion they have every right to do so, especially since Science is also considered a religion by so many “enlightened” thinkers. An American school is supposed to be teaching free thought and allowing students to arrive at proven ideas anyway. Teaching evolution as truth is just as much of a Constitutional sin as teaching any religion as truth. This just shows you how far we’ve veered from our original philosophy of transferring ideas. We as humans are so far from knowing the truth; it would be a lie to proclaim any field of study an all knowing truth. And please don’t take this to mean that facts don’t exist. I am merely pointing out the similarity in the evolution of religion to the evolution of science in the search for understanding. I am also pointing out that communities should be allowed to decide what they present to their children. And as long as only facts are presented as truth, no law has been broken. I would risk wagering a large sum of money that more facts could be discussed in a religion class than what has been discussed in History classes over the years. Much of this paragraph is for another day and needs further explanation, but I want to stay focused on personality testing by the government. I got a little bit off track but I felt it was a necessary paragraph to include because it illustrates how similar the government and media have become to churches by faithfully using Science like a bad religion.
[Understanding Separation of Church and state requires a discussion about the difference between using associations and using direct relationships. It also involves holding a religion accountable to itself and not a respected representative. But it does not mean the “established” government can end or replace customs of a community. Customs and values are what make us humans. But like I said this would get off track and be quite the conundrum to answer with authority]
I believe the Nazis were Christians who used references from the Bible, but never do I remember them saying that what they were doing was in the name of Jesus. Most importantly, their actions did not follow the principles of Jesus and this is why Christianity cannot be blamed for their actions. However, ISIS on the other hand is following specific ideology of their religion. Most importantly, their actions are following the principles of what they are preaching. And the fact that people can’t distinguish the difference between ISIS and Christianity, but think they see a difference between government personality testing and religion pisses me off. How can people so Scientific not be able to distinguish different observations from the same observations? Because they don’t look at all of the variables involved and compare them, they only look for the one variable that proves what they want.
There are many things are schools are promoting now that have turned Science and Character Counts into a bad religion instead of a pure set of principles to discuss and understand. Science can be misused just as easily as Christianity. Especially, in the face of so many people who went through an educational system that devalued the role of Math, Science, and Skepticism in distinguishing the truth from opinion. For some time now our schools have been promoting cooperation rather than individual thinking. The only way to create a rogue cult is to produce citizens who can’t think on their own. It becomes very easy to influence cooperative thinkers who don’t know how theories become laws in Science. It does not mean Science is wrong or bad, it just means that our government is misusing Science (with the help of the media) to mislead people for its own agendas. There is nothing wrong with Science or its principles. The problem is that people are not following the principles of Science and are not doing it properly. Unsettling to me are people who mock Christianity when this same fallacy happens but willingly follow our government or their political party in the name of Science without question. To help silence our questioning of Science famous people are used to spread the “good word” and are typically applauded because of their fame and fortune in our society even though they lack rhyme or reason. Typically, all these famous people need to do is make statements that are false but would be appealing if they were true and people are satisfied. For example, saying that a law will end poverty when in reality the law will have no effect or an unclear effect. Another example, when a nonprofit organization says it cares about animals we all say it is a just cause and a good idea even though the organization may not do anything to help animals and uses its donations to pay its CEO’s lots of money.
If you want to play the numbers game, the fact remains that most prosperous communities associated with good qualities of living conditions have been Christian communities (And I need to be clear that I am talking about communities who follow the principles of Christianity, not just communities who proclaim to be Christian). I’m sure that there would be a lot of protest if I suggested that only Christians should be hired. I’m not saying that I agree with the previous sentence, I’m just saying that if we are to play this game that would be the result of “religious testing”. As much as I would like that, I know that it would not be fair to persecute people in this way because there are always many exceptions and I personally have seen many wonderful cultures. I would go so far as to say that most people are awesome when given the chance regardless of their religion. At least I’m able to admit it when something is wrong even if it supports my beliefs or opinions. However, please don’t confuse these statements into meaning that someone’s principles and beliefs don’t matter when you are hiring them.
[The number game would also show that communities are better off when citizens make their own decisions and the community fixes its own problems rather than being regulated by a system, but that is also another discussion]
Yes, we have to judge people when we hire or vote for them (see my article on “UnAmerican Football”). I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy in what the government dictates and what it does. I’m also questioning the methodologies the government is using to develop its religion. When the government starts using character and values to judge people it sounds a lot like they are creating their own religious group. Basically, it sounds like they are telling me they can determine whether a Christian or Muslim will be the best person for the job. They are essentially selecting the same “type” of person instead of a qualified person. Isn’t this the exact opposite of what every government program has been pushing on people? Knowing the methods psychologists use to determine these stereotypes, I think it would be better to use Science to determine specific mental and physical skills that are required for the specific job and then test for these skills regardless of whether you are Muslim or Christian. Answering questions about your opinions that could change depending on your frame of mind and cultural values is not specifically testing anyone on any skill.
I’m not insinuating that values and character don’t matter because if a person’s values are in direct conflict with the required skill or task to be performed then he/she shouldn’t get the job. I am insinuating that only the skills that matter should be tested. People don’t understand the significance of Separation of Church and State because they don’t realize it is impossible to establish a state without some philosophy or system of belief. What causes problems regarding this idea is that people refuse to accept that many of America’s original principles are based off of the teachings of Jesus. And people also refuse to accept that if an idea goes against our Constitution then it is unacceptable regardless of whether you define that idea as a religion or not. I cannot change the fact that most of our founding fathers were well versed in Christianity regardless of how upset anyone gets. They were educated Scientists who studied many religions and chose to relate our founding principles with the scriptures from Jesus. They acknowledged that natural law (nature) is our message from God, or from the “system of our origin of higher power that science studies” if it makes you feel better (which I think none of us are clear on). Yes, there is God’s law but no church (or government) can dictate who is qualified to lead our understanding of those laws, which is the purpose of our Bill of Rights. There is a right and wrong, and enough of the original leaders believed that Jesus was very pure in how to determine that right and wrong while maintaining free will that the message of Jesus influenced our Declaration of Independence. Additionally, the Bill of Rights was designed to allow free interpretation of that philosophy for all citizens; NOT to end the interpretation of that philosophy in our social system. So often it appears as though the Christian church is influencing our decisions, which technically it is, and this causes a lot of arguments about separation of church and state [and no, it does not have anything to do with gay marriage]. I felt this paragraph was necessary to acknowledge that at times one’s beliefs may need to be judged and it does not mean that religious persecution is taking place. Once again this paragraph requires much further explanation, but I want to maintain my focus on my disagreement with personality testing.
[Here also lies the root of all arguments I see in America. We cannot make a rubric that tells someone 100% of the time how to categorize events, such as whether religious persecution has transpired or not when someone’s beliefs come into question. We must rely on competent individuals to think and categorize each event, rather than following predetermined indicators with no thinking. On one hand you have enlightenment that inspired the birth of the United States; on the other hand you have the controlled corruption that inspires the decadence of Communistic states]
Back to my point, I’m saying stop playing the numbers game and follow what was set in motion by enlightened Americans several hundred years ago. Personality testing by the government is the first of a long list of complete crap that must be ended. The government should only be selecting people who are the most qualified to complete the desired task that is consistent with our Constitution and laws. It should not be making up a separate philosophy based on numbers of what beliefs it takes to be a competent worker. Maybe this is why police officers have such a hard time using discretion any more. They were selected for their religious belief in the current overbearing, un-American system verses serving and protecting communities governed by the people. Even if 100% of the best police officers that get along with all their coworkers eat steak, eating steak should not be a requirement because it has nothing to do with being a good police officer or getting along with people.
Think about it, government employees in today’s society heavily regulate “we the people”. And in many cases government employees are some of the least qualified candidates in the workforce. Shouldn’t we be selecting government workers based on their ability rather than their system of beliefs approved by the government? I’d rather have an independent thinker evaluate regulations imposed on me versus an undeserving cooperative thinker. I want people who can read and understand laws and regulations and their purpose, not people who depend on the ruling class to interpret the laws for them in exchange for security. Nor do I want people representing my community who don’t know what to do whenever a scenario arises outside of the box. Nor do I want people in my community who were selected because they are good at imposing control on me.
Only adding to the conundrum of personality testing is the number of government workers who passed a personality test but are now on some kind of meds. I really don’t know what the purpose of personality testing is because it doesn’t seem to work based on the number of employees who pass the test and then end up being diagnosed with a problem and prescribed medicine. Adding insult to injury, people were denied work for the belief that they have a bad personality but after people get hired and they are “labeled” as having some kind of personality problem they get a free pass to be shitty workers and become drug addicts. At this point, I would love for someone to explain to me the functioning of personality testing by the government because I don’t see any type of logical coherence. So really the government psychologists are nothing more than drug dealers, except they are supported by the police. When you think about how many people’s lives have been ruined by the “war on drugs” and compare it to what our government does and even further compare it to the corruption that comes from what our government does you can become quite infuriated.
I know that Psychology uses a very good method of statistical analysis to create its beliefs, but Psychology is not a true science in the sense that it is unethical to design some of the controlled experiments that would be needed to prove facts. I adore Psychology for its advancements in helping people with problems that voluntarily seek it and I’m not saying that it can’t be useful in selecting a good worker. I just disagree with the way I see Science currently being used. I loathe Psychology for its advancements in persecuting people with no problems and “absolving” people who do wrong. We already know that most people don’t answer surveys honestly and there are a lot of people with screwed up behaviors in general. Do you really think it’s a good idea to use this population’s stereotyped responses to random questions about what they would take to the beach to assess an honest and intelligent person’s ability to be a police officer? Remember that personality tests are coming from the same field of study that believes it has proven that spanking children is bad for them. [Ironically, that is exactly what society condones from the police when we grow up and leave home and do something wrong in society, but that is also another conversation]. I would also like to know just what type of personality they are looking for when they do select police officers these days. Because it does not seem to be associated with “protect and serve”, it seems more associated with “force and control”. We may be robots that cannot control our actions. But Psychologists certainly do not have the handbook for these machines. And even if they did, Americans have chosen to live by free will and I will always choose to live by free will.
I’m not complaining about religion or testing and I’m not complaining about being judged by the government. It’s the idea of personality tests using associations to make judgements, which is the persecution of someone because of their values, without a crime ever being committed. It specifically uses a stereotype to evaluate someone’s ability. This is the fallacy of religion that was intended to be separated from the state because judgement should be based on direct relationships to what is being judged [And see my article on “UnAmerican Football” if you still assume that we cannot be judged because of our religion at this point in the discussion]. Using Psychology in the manner of “personality testing” is a threat to the beliefs in our Constitution and America’s individualism; it is a threat to freethinking. It is respecting the belief of an establishment without ever showing direct proof that I’ve been a poor worker. It is the end of protesting laws against our beliefs, our values, and our free will. I know the government does not use personality testing to a great extent, but it is the growing idea of “mental health” decided by the state the scares me. The notion that a person’s free will can be predicted was one of society’s greatest sins; using “Science” instead of “Religion” (ironically I’ve heard many University Professors label Science a religion) to feel better about it doesn’t change the sin. Especially, when the “Science” is being used by organizations so easily corrupted; the exact reason our Constitution was designed to specifically limit the government.
[Remember that hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to say I knew there was something wrong with that guy after he commits a crime, but what you are forgetting is that there were many guys that you thought there was something wrong with that did not commit a crime]
When we break the law we all have something in our biology that causes us to do it. But that something does not excuse us from being accountable for our actions even if scientists think they can identify that something. These are dangerous grounds that we agreed don’t exist according to our Constitution. Have you not seen “Minority Report”?
Saying that gay people and Bruce Jenner don’t have a choice is saying that free will does not exist because of preference. If that were true, no laws would exist. It is the free will to choose that Americans once sought; not approval from the government, not a certificate, and certainly not absolution…