Originally Posted by
darkroomsource
Whether the question is stupid or not depends upon two things.
One, what is the position being applied for?
Two, what is the purpose of the question?
For example, if the position being applied for is one that requires immagination and creativity, and the purpose of the question is to investigate the persons ability to develop a creative answer to an absurd question, then asking how a pencil gets itself out of a blender is not a stupid question.
However, if the position being applied for is one that consists of repetitive labor, such as working on a production line, then the question is stupid.
In the situation we're most likely talking about - a pilot - then there is a part of the job which does require a level of imagination and creativity, after the checklist is exhausted and there's no solution, what do you do. However in this case, it's probably better to ask a question that's along those lines "Mr. X, assuming you've exhausted the checklist and still can't get the gear down, what do you do?"
The origin of the manhole cover question, for example, came from Microsoft, and even though I have no love of Microsoft, I understand the purpose of the question completely, however I think that a candidate should be informed of the purpose of the question, so that they "talk out" their thinking process. There are some jobs, and being a computer programmer is one of them, where the problem today is completely different than the problem yesterday, so companies want to know "how" a person thinks, rather than "what" they think.
My thoughts on this run along two lines. They are:
1. These kinds of questions are junk science as far as I can tell. If they want to use junk science to eliminate job applicants there are easier and better methods (draw straws, good looks, nepotism, etc.) They aren't going to learn anything from poorly-administered pseudo psychology. The way the OP gave the scenario the "bizarre" questions one might encounter would be given by people who are not psychologists in an environment that is not controlled according to scientific method which is what the typical face to face job interview is. If the testing was supported by rigorous, proven science that would be another thing. I know of such testing and have no issue with it if it is really helpful.
2. I am generally opposed to any company using industrial psychology to control me. Having a company getting inside the head of its employees smacks of invasion of personal rights. It is the same argument that gets going in other areas of public life, such as how much does the NSA (National Security Agency) need to know about the average citizen in order to keep a grip in terrorism? Do they need to know every thought, read every text, read every email, and put every curious event on a watchlist? Should they be allowed to implant RFID tags in anyone they happen to suspect? You get my point, it is a serious and debatable question of personal rights versus the public interest, or in this case the company interest. A person has rights and the inside of their own head should be somewhat private. As soon as I see an industrial psych tests coming my way I generally run for my rights and I urge others to as well.