Cognitive Development Tests as part of interview - feel violated

I'm confused.  

What is the difference between a cognitive development test.  And a psychometric test?

As part of job selection procedures, I have done several psychometric tests.  But I have never been questioned by a live psychologist. 

Yes me too. That psychometric test is like an intelligence test? With the diagrams and word sequences and calculations?

Less like an IQ test - more like the actual tests I had when I was a kid to see if I was autistic! Imagining social situations and relationships and asking me to explain how I thought people were feeling

I've had some really strange interviews where I end up talking to them on a meta-level and hypothesising and getting completely off the subject.

And there were some in which I just went 'I doubt whether this is going to work out, don't you think? I think you are really looking for someone more like xxxxx and not what you put in the job descrtion, because of [reason].' Followed by some kind of discussion with the interviewer(s). Then I'd leave on a cordial note and they'd end up thinking about what they were really looking for. 

But you have to remember not to be too perfect - just in case they spot you're taking the p***

Analysis is bliss ️

I used to do that. Quickly figure out who they wanted me to be, and very few saw through that.

Also those tests are so obvious. Like the same question comes up four times, twice negative, twice positively phrased.

I've done lots - the longest took almost a day - psychometric tests (multi-guess), interviews with HR, interviews with technical heads and then more technical exams - all for a fairly menial job developing clever hospital beds - some companies can't help themselves.

The problems is that the Aspie-me can see straight through the task so I will come across as the best thing since sliced bread - that mask allows me to then decide if I'm in over my head or not - it puts the decision ball into my court.

I didn't take that job.

No, I get what you mean.

It provides a framework to hold on to. And an easy way to say someone is not suited for the job.

Seriously??? I have never had to do those! Although I guess that role play acting part sounds somewhat similar

I think these things can be a useful guide - potentially in terms of self-awareness for the person themselves if nothing else.  But you should know what you're looking for and how to determine whether you're likely to have found it or not!

I think a lot of it is about abdicating responsibility to a 'scientific method' so if the new-hire turns out to be useless, they can blame something other than their own interviewing incompetence.

I'm a computer programmer so I interview for a lot of startups. They're very young and inexperienced and they tend to follow fads in recruitment and emulate American tech companies. Psychometric Testing is big in both tech and US banking - there's a lot of popscience literature about it by big names. Myers Briggs is also big in tech and finance so startups like it even tho I don't believe there's sufficient science behind it - the way people see it seems slightly religious to me? It's kind of a dogma that's pretty much universally accepted and the justification for many hiring practices is pinned to a framework around Myers-Briggs and 70s behavioural psychology coz they need some sort of framework to pin it on I guess? Does that make sense? Not sure if I'm expressing my opinion right here?

I'm a computer programmer so I interview for a lot of startups. They're very young and inexperienced and they tend to follow fads in recruitment and emulate American tech companies. Psychometric Testing is big in both tech and US banking - there's a lot of popscience literature about it by big names. Myers Briggs is also big in tech and finance so startups like it even tho I don't believe there's sufficient science behind it - the way people see it seems slightly religious to me? It's kind of a dogma that's pretty much universally accepted and the justification for many hiring practices is pinned to a framework around Myers-Briggs and 70s behavioural psychology coz they need some sort of framework to pin it on I guess? Does that make sense? Not sure if I'm expressing my opinion right here?

No, I get what you mean.

It provides a framework to hold on to. And an easy way to say someone is not suited for the job.

I think these things can be a useful guide - potentially in terms of self-awareness for the person themselves if nothing else.  But you should know what you're looking for and how to determine whether you're likely to have found it or not!

I think a lot of it is about abdicating responsibility to a 'scientific method' so if the new-hire turns out to be useless, they can blame something other than their own interviewing incompetence.