Originally Posted by Cubdriver

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.