= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Is IQ what we actually need to know? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (53)
I suspect that any "conscientiousness, benevolence, and loyalty" test which is both as accurate and as easy to administer as an IQ test would be much easier to game than the IQ test. And, of course, less conscientious would be more tempted to game it, by lying to themselves and others.
Out of curiosity, I tried this one and easily ended up in the top 10% of conscientiousness by lying to a few questions, but not to too many, to avoid suspicion. There is no way I could game a random IQ test in a similar fashion, however.
Does anyone know of reliable tests of personality traits other than IQ?
Well, personality surveys can get away with using blatantly loaded questions because there's not much motivation to lie on an anonymous survey (though it's not exactly unheard of anyway, and there are issues of self-image vs. behavior to consider). This obviously wouldn't fly if something like college admissions or a job application was riding on the results, but I'm not going to condemn the existing tests for failing outside of the domain they were designed for.
I can't think off the top of my head of any good ways to measure conscientiousness in such an accurate and finely-grained way that the results could be used like IQ tests are used; you could use secret-test-of-character methods like e.g. leaving out a basket of donuts with a donation box and a hidden camera, but that'd give you only one data point. But I'm not going to say that designing a test like that is impossible, either.
That also has the problem that these things are easily gamed if their famous enough.