Please read and share this widely – I think it might just be massive.
I wrote yesterday about the psychological bullying being inflicted on unemployed people by Jobcentre Plus on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions, as huge, intimidating tasks are inflicted on people with minimal literacy, confidence and computer skills – backed by the threat of benefit ‘sanctions’ if they are not completed by a very short deadline.
But it gets even worse. One part of the series of tasks being imposed is an online ‘My strengths test’, consisting of a series of 48 multiple-choice answers to questions about your personality.
I can reveal that this ‘test’ is a completely bogus scam designed to manipulate unemployed people into performing a completely random, week-long exercise of incorporating supposed ‘characteristics’ into their daily behaviour.
How do I know this? Because the ‘test’ is fake – it allocates you a ‘personality’ even if you don’t answer the questions.
Try it for yourself here (at least until the government finds out it’s been rumbled and changes or removes the test). I clicked ‘next’ on each of the 48 questions until I reached the end. This is what came up after the last question page:
The page goes on to list 5 ‘strengths’ and to instruct respondents to enter their email address so they can discuss the ‘results’ with their Jobcentre Plus advisor. Not only this, but the covering letter that comes with the instruction to complete the ‘test’ tells the recipient that he or she must
use each of your strengths in a new way everyday (sic) for at least a week.
Untold numbers of people running around trying to use ‘strengths’ that actually have nothing to do with their actual personality – all under the threat of losing their income if they fail to comply.
A quick search of the root directory of the site reveals that, even though this site is called ‘Behaviour Library’, there are no other tests on the site. The title of the site is selected to give the impression that there is a scientific basis for the test and that it is conducted by some kind of specialist organisation competent to conduct psychometric testing – but there is not even any information to identify who devised the questions.
What there is, however, is a couple of Tory white papers – and a very revealing Powerpoint presentation. While the information in the presentation is clearly designed to provide prompts for someone to speak over, it is clearly about a particularly dark version of the government’s ‘nudge’ theory to influence behaviour.
This PowerPoint file contains some very sinister images about the kind of psychological impact the government is aiming for:
There is no doubt at all that the point of this ‘test’ – and the process of which it is part – is to terrify unemployed people into compliance and to set many up to fail so that they can be ‘sanctioned’ and have their benefits stopped.
Could there be any clearer demonstration that this government has no concern at all for the unemployed and the unfortunate? The Tories don’t even want everyone to be in work because they fear it would push up wages from the pathetic levels we see in many jobs – and it’s on the official record that this is the case.
But it goes beyond that. Chillingly, this Tory-led government has taken a cynical decision to terrify disadvantaged people into jumping through hoops to manipulate them into taking even the most insecure, unsuitable and low-paying jobs – or else be cast onto the ‘sanctioned’ heap and cut off from support anyway.
And this is not the only way they do it, as you’ll find out if you ask any disabled person about their experiences with the DWP – while they demonise them to turn so-called ‘strivers’ against them. Divide and conquer.
This ‘test’ is a tool for abuse and psychological torture and a ruse to fool the electorate into thinking the Tories are interested in getting people back to work. They’re interested in cutting them off from their benefits, but that’s a different matter altogether.
If you’re not worried about this, you should be. This is a government that wants the right to access all our emails and the right to try us in secret. If this is how they behave in one area, can they be trusted in any other?
This sinister government ploy needs to be exposed as the ‘Big Brother’ mind-control torture that it is – and its perpetrators must be held to account. Including David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith.
Shocking stuff here Steve.
Intimidating JSA claimants is a step too far & surely some national newspapers will be interested ? How about tweeting Shiv Malik or emailing Jackie Long of C4 ?
Good idea! I don’t have her email address, do you?
I don’t but the C4 news email is news@channel4.com so maybe just use that one. Most corporate emails split the christian & the surname so maybe try jackie.long@channel4.com
Reblogged this on Vox Political and commented:
The Coalition’s control experiments continue. Here, Steve Walker shows how a fake personality test is a scam designed to manipulate the unemployed – and reveals the far more sinister thinking behind it.
I would drop ‘mind control’ from the title – people will write it off as being kooky instantly, when this in reality needs to be shared pretty extensively
Yes, I did wonder about it!
Mind control has always been a powerful tool Steve, the military don’t always come out of the forces screwed up by what they have seen or done!
Disgusting! The professional psychological bodies should speak out about this
While I agree that the “psychological test” is largely bogus, I’m not sure it’s quite as bogus at you think. If you have a look at the source code (you can download the php file from the root directory as well) it does seem to do something. My PHP coding is a bit rusty, but as far as I can tell it does seem to produce different responses depending on what answers you give, albeit in a rather amateurish way. The lack of checking to see if you’ve answered any questions at all is particularly amateurish, and frankly, their web security sucks too, as there is no way you should be able to just download a php file like that from a properly configured web server.
But on the whole, I think this may be more cock-up than conspiracy. At least as far as the psychological test goes. Some of the other aspects are a bit worrying.
I’ve put in identical answers and come out with different answers, as have others. Using this test – whether it’s malicious or just crap – to manipulate people and threatening to remove their benefits if they don’t is just inexcusable.
Agreed
I went right through clicking the top answer for each question, then again clicking the bottom answer. The ‘results’ were exactly the same for each! It’s total BS. Thanks for flagging it up
Stop talking shite.
Learn to read javascript.
Very strange…
I tried the test three times: once selecting the first option ‘Very much like me’, once selecting the last option ‘Very much unlike me’ and once selecting no option as you did. I got identical ‘Strengths’ for all three.
Bogus? Looks very like it.
That doesn’t necessarily prove that it’s bogus, as some of the questions may be scored positively and some scored negatively, so if you answer them all the other way round they may cancel out.
My take on it is that it’s not designed to be bogus, but just put together in such an amateurish way that the result is probably the same as if it had been.
You could be right Adam – I see Sean has looked at it a bit more closely below.
Oh and, surprise, surprise, if you select ‘Neutral’ for all 48 answers you still get exactly the same ‘Strengths’.
The domain is registered to Samuel Nguyen, on behalf of the cabinet office.
Nice find Sean.
A quick google leads to the powerpoint presentation, in which slide 19 ends any doubt whatsoever that the psychometric test Steve refers to & the PPT by Mr Nguyen is by one & the same author.
https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=samuel+nguyen+cabinet+office&oq=samuel+nguy&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l2j0i22i30j0i22i10i30.2255.9670.0.12050.28.18.0.0.0.3.221.1818.8j7j1.16.0.eappsweb..0.0…1.1j2.9.psy-ab.uTzq4zmAoes&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45368065,d.d2k&fp=a06ba9355f44a4db&biw=1366&bih=681
Sorry Steve, I have no idea why my link has spread across your site nor why it has replicated itself.
Examination of the PHP code on the website shows that the 48 questions are evaluated in pairs. For example, the score for strength 0 (“Curiosity”) is the difference in response between question 1 and question2, the score for strength 1 (“Love of Learning”) is the difference between question 3 and 4, and so on. The programmer has added some constants here for some reason – since they are added to every result it affects the output not one jot. The strength categories with the top 5 scores are then displayed at the end. No effort is made to rank ties, the order is just whatever the sort() function makes of it. It is laughably simple.
I see things like this all the time in the workfare section of Sheffield’s Bailey Court Jobcentre, literate white folk breezing in and out while non-English speakers have the book thrown at them. Not to mention the people with drug/alcohol dependencies that are in no fit state to even be on regular J.S.A anyway. Funnily enough, there was once two guys that used to come in to A4e that I took to referring to Mckenna and Brown (after the T.V hypnotist/mentalists) due to their blatant Neurolinguistic programming techniques.
And dont it piss em off when you fail to respond to their techniques, and at the end of session mention the name of said technique.
And how their lack of understanding in the mechanics and implication, by learning from a text book, verbatim, and failing to understand or even bother to try and critically analyse what they were taught made them transparent.
Kinda pisses em off.
Whilst I agree with everything else, the quiz that gives a result even though you answered no questions suggests poor programing by the person who wrote the processing code, nothing more. As a programer I can see instantly why it would appear that its a scam when it gives you a result even with no answers – this could be fixed with the addition of 1-2 lines of code.
The quiz works by giving a positive or negative weight to each answer probably ranging: +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 … this is tallied up on the back end and a list of outcomes is shown based on the score achieved, that list is sorted depending on the score, if no score has been entered then its original sort order will remain. The fault lies in that the page allows you to not answer and still proceed, this is a fairly basic thing to check when making such a webpage.
Perhaps it was cheap?
No doubt they will have put it out to tender to any qualified provider and chosen the cheapest…
Oh, this gives a definite impression of ‘jobs for the boys’..
The more I think about this, the worse it seems. Any idea how many people are being instructed to fill this in? People are being asked to fill in a questionnaire whose results are the same whatever answers are given, and even if none are given. Presumably if they don’t fill it in, they risk being sanctioned. It’s unbelievable how amateurish that site is. The point seems to be to impose as many pointless task on job seekers as possible with the aim of either sanctioning for non-compliance, or hoping they just stop claiming. Whether or not they actually find work seems somehow irrelevant to DWP.
Oh, the risk of losing benefits if you don’t do it is explicit. I don’t know how many, but I expect at least all long-term unemployed, so hundreds of thousands. It’s about torturing people and setting them up to fail so they can have their benefits taken away.
Here’s the full list of 24 categories, with their positive questions and negative questions:
“Curiosity”, “I am always curious about the world”, “I am easily bored”,
“Love of learning”, “I am thrilled when I learn something new”, “I never go out of my way to visit museums”,
“Critical Thinking”, “When the topic called for it, I can be a highly rational thinker”, “I tend to make snap judgements”,
“Originality”, “I like to think of new ways to do things”, “Most of my friends are more imaginative than I am”,
“Social Intelligence”, “No matter what the social situation, I am able to fit in”, “I am not very good at sensing what other people are feeling”,
“Perspective”, “I am always able to look at things and see the big picture”, “Others rarely come to me for advice”,
“Bravery”, “I have taken frequent stands in the face of strong opposition”, “Pain and disappointment often get the better of me”,
“Dedication”,”I always finish what I start”, “I get sidetracked when I work”,
“Honesty”, “I always keep my promises”, “My friends never tell me I知 down to earth”,
“Kindness”, “I voluntarily helped a neighbour last month”, “I am rarely as excited about the good fortune of others as I am about my own”,
“Loving”, “There are people in my life who care as much about my feelings and well-being as they do about their own”, “I have trouble accepting love from others”,
“Teamwork”, “I work best when I am part of a group”, “I hesitate to sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of groups I am in”,
“Fairness”, “I treat all people equally, regardless of who they might be”, “If I do not like someone, it is difficult for me to treat him or her fairly”,
“Leadership”, “I can always get people to do things together without nagging them”, “I am not very good at planning group activities”,
“Self Control”, “I can control my emotions”, “I can rarely stay on a diet”,
“Carefulness”, “I avoid activities that are physically dangerous”, “I sometimes make poor choices in friendships and relationships”,
“Modesty”, “I change the subject when people pay me compliments”, “I often brag about my accomplishments”,
“Appreciation of Culture”, “In the last month, I have been thrilled by excellence in music, art, drama, film, sport, science or mathematics”, “I have not created anything of beauty in the last year”,
“Gratitude”, “I always say thank you, even for little things”, “I rarely stop and count my blessings”,
“Optimism”, “I always look on bright side”, “I rarely have a well thought out plan for what I want to do”,
“Spirituality”, “My life has a strong purpose”, “I do not have a calling in life”,
“Forgiveness”, “I always let bygones be bygones”, “I always try to get even”,
“Humour”, “I always mix work and play as much as possible”, “I rarely say funny things”,
“Enthusiasm”, “I throw myself into everything I do”, “I mope a lot”
In my opinion, the result is one step down from the coffee-break quizzes in the flimsy 20p gossip magazines.
“In my opinion, the result is one step down from the coffee-break quizzes in the flimsy 20p gossip magazines”
I couldn’t agree more.
And to go with that, here’s the descriptions for each:
“Curiosity”: “You are curious about everything. You are always asking questions, and you find all subjects and topics fascinating. You like exploration and discovery.”
“Love of learning”: “You love learning new things, whether in a class or on your own. You have always loved school, reading, and museums-anywhere and everywhere there is an opportunity to learn.”
“Critical Thinking”: “Thinking things through and examining them from all sides are important aspects of who you are. You do not jump to conclusions, and you rely only on solid evidence to make your decisions. You are able to change your mind.”
“Originality”: “Thinking of new ways to do things is a crucial part of who you are. You are never content with doing something the conventional way if a better way is possible.”
“Social Intelligence”: “You are aware of the motives and feelings of other people. You know what to do to fit in to different social situations, and you know what to do to put others at ease.”
“Perspective”: “Although you may not think of yourself as wise, your friends hold this view of you. They value your advice on matters. You have a way of looking at the world that makes sense to others and to yourself. ”
“Bravery”: “You are a courageous person who does not shrink from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain. You speak up for what is right even if there is opposition. You act on your convictions.”
“Dedication”: “You work hard to finish what you start. No matter the project, you complete it in timely fashion. You do not get distracted when you work, and you take satisfaction in completing tasks.”
“Honesty”: “You are an honest person, not only by speaking the truth, but by living your life in a genuine and authentic way. You are down to earth and without pretense.”
“Kindness”: “You are kind and generous to others, and you are never too busy to do a favour. You enjoy doing good deeds for others, even if you do not know them well. ”
“Loving”: “You value close relations with others, in particular those in which there is sharing and caring. The people to whom you feel most close are the same people who feel most close to you.”
“Teamwork”: “You excel as a member of a group. You are a loyal and dedicated teammate, you always do your share, and you work hard for the success of your group.”
“Fairness”: “Treating all people fairly is one of your abiding principles. You do not let your personal feelings bias your decisions about other people. You give everyone a chance.”
“Leadership”: “You excel at the tasks of leadership: encouraging a group to get things done and preserving harmony within the group by making everyone feel included. You do a good job organizing activities and seeing that they happen.”
“Self Control”: “You self-consciously regulate what you feel and what you do. You are a disciplined person. You are in control of your appetites and your emotions, not vice versa.”
“Carefulness”: “You are a careful person. You do not say or do things that you might later regret.”
“Modesty”: “You do not seek the spotlight, preferring to let your accomplishments speak for themselves. Others recognize and value your modesty.”
“Appreciation of Culture”: “You notice and appreciate beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in all domains of life, from nature to art to mathematics to science to everyday experience.”
“Gratitude”: “You are aware of the good things that happen to you, and you never take them for granted. Your friends and family members know that you are a grateful person because you always take the time to express your thanks.”
“Optimism”: “You expect the best in the future, and you work to achieve it. You believe that the future is something that you can control.”
“Spirituality”: “You have strong and coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the universe. You know where you fit in the larger scheme. Your beliefs shape your actions and are a source of comfort to you.”
“Forgiveness”: “You forgive those who have done you wrong. You always give people a second chance. Your guiding principle is mercy and not revenge.”
“Humour”: “You like to laugh and tease. Bringing smiles to other people is important to you. You try to see the light side of all situations.”
“Enthusiasm”: “Regardless of what you do, you approach it with excitement and energy. You never do anything halfway or half-heartedly. For you, life is an adventure.”
Most of which are incredibly vague & applicable to anyone, in the style of a horoscope in the next page of the gossip magazine. (Did they just lift the whole thing from one of those?!)
They are called Barnum (or Forer) statements after showman P T Barnum’s observation that “we’ve got something for everyone”.
How are these supposed to help anyone find a job? How are they supposed to “demonstrate” incorporating any of these abstract traits into their life? And where is the scientific evidence that these discrete qualities are qualities that help motivate someone to be in work? Typical of this evidence-averse arrogant ministers.
Reblogged this on Diary of an SAH Stroke Survivor.
Fuck!?!
Ok, shock fading / cynicism loading………
OMactualGs. But hey- I am attempting to reverse the flow of terror! Please join us – the more people join the stronger we will be.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Voodoo-La-Revolution/452530914816908
This is completely bonkers. A sham of a test. This should be sent to every MP and news outlet.
I’m working on it but help welcome! 🙂
I’m still stuck on “use each of your strengths in a new way everyday (sic) for at least a week.”
What the fuck does that even mean?
Exactly – vague AND demanding, and all backed by a serious threat. Psychological torture.
The test appears to have been modelled very closely on an existing test. Searching for a representative phrase (“You have a way of looking at the world that makes sense to others and to yourself”) gives lots of sources attributing it to Martin E. Seligman and the late Chris Peterson, specifically “Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification” (2004).
Hm. Well, it turns out that not only is this based on the kind of computer coding that a 6-year-old would probably have been embarrassed to have written, but they’ve mucked about with it psychometrically as well.
It seems that this test is loosely based on the “VIA Signature Strength Survey”. But only loosely. The authentic version has 240 questions, not just 48. And while both have 24 strengths, they don’t quite match up.
There’s a lot of work that goes into validating psychometic tests like this. If you take a validated questionnaire and monkey around with it in this way, you end up with something that simply doesn’t have acceptable psychometric validity.
Details of the original, validated scale here:
http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/aiesec/content.aspx?id=821
Run a whois check on the site; it’s registered to Samuel Nguyen, senior economist at the Government Behavioural Insights Team, or ‘Nudge Unit’
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/samuel-nguyen/30/643/333
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/behavioural-insights-team
No one seems to have commented on the Linkedin profile of Mr Nguyen. Apart from his current position, his past gap year placement 2004-2005 at the well known Left wing;-) Adam Smith Institute might have coloured his thinking a little on the blue side.
Surely if the government is to use psychometric tests to direct the action of claimants, it should employ independent and neutral firms.
Notwithstanding this comment, I find it deeply disturbing that this government appears to be getting away with behaviour which amounts to psychological torture.
Give me time lol – that’s something I’m investigating now, though it’s hardly surprising that this lot would go with such an ideologically-blinkered and suspect outfit!
Reblogged this on kickingthecat.
er if you’re on jsa you work for the guvmint. And as any good emploer, it wants you to identify your own strengths and weaknesses.
http://www.samuelnguyen.co.uk/
I know this is only a typo, but “emerse”? (It means pretty much exactly the opposite of “immerse”.)
“Unfamiliar with life in the jobcentre, behavioural insight team staff spent three months watching and learning before they made their suggestions.
“One of the team’s economists, Sam Nguyen, said he was “extremely confident” that the next tranche of results, released next month, will show the same pattern.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a5dbfee-8806-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QoQQ5L2v
I have written to Mr. Nguyen at the DWP making some of these points. Let us see if he responds.
Is this even a live site, though? It hasn’t been touched since October last year, and the test has been static since July. I can find nothing linking to it. Perhaps it’s an abandoned experiment.
People are still being referred to it, though!
While I’m sure you’re right, I would still be interested to know who, how many, where from, how, and under what circumstances. (And the wine list, please!) In the worst case, if we’re going off half-cocked because one Job Centre Plus assessor discovered an old website and decided to use it, then that would be rather embarrassing.
I agree with Sean – it would be good to get some firm evidence that it is currently being widely used.
They say themselves that it’s in at least 3 areas – Tees Valley being one, Essex another and I can’t remember the 3rd without checking – and that they intended (from its launch) to roll it out in other areas. That’s widely enough and perhaps very widely.
wow they really are bonkers at the dwp arn’t they? what an absolute joke!
I have a reply from Mr. Nguyen making the following points:
– It is not an official DWP website.
– Mr. Nguyen doesn’t work for the DWP.
– It was developed with informal input from Dr. Seligman.
– It does not collect information about peoples’ answers.
– It was developed in his “spare time”.
– It is being used as part of a policy trial in Essex. (I have asked for more details)
Since the letter – threatening sanctions for non-compliance – was given to a claimant in Middlesbrough by Jobcentre Plus on behalf of the DWP, he’s talking bollocks! The PowerPoint also gives the lie to it, as does the DWP quote someone else posted in a comment that says it’s being rolled out across the country.
Oh, and since you’re told to enter your email address to get your results sent to you, they’re doing SOMETHING with the answers..
Again, let’s not jump to conclusions – it may just be as simple as a way of checking that you did actually do the test. But I have a strong hunch that this counts as sensitive personal data for data protection purposes, and would need to be handled properly.
(Disclaimer, I’m not a lawyer, sing along, you all know the words by now…)
Here’s the PowerPoint presentation, with its images of courtrooms and bailiffs, and messages advising of fines. Now tell me it’s not designed to frighten people:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oa1rcagxzyu4hhl/moJ2.pptx
The answers do indeed get submitted to the server if you click “email me my results”. The resulting email contains text which is not included in the local script on the web page. Once again it is probably perfectly true that these data are not held after being posted to you.
What is really bothering me is the request in the letter, where the claimant was asked to enter a DWP email address – that means the data is hanging around in their email system, which are not know for being very secure.
Apros pos data protection: when you sign on your ‘contract’ with the DWP for JSA includes you signing away your data protection rights. You’ll find it in one of the last paragraphs of your contract that is your original claim.
Well done! The key would seem to be getting more info on this trial.
More details:
– The trial is this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/30/jobseekers-dole-nudge-unit-psychology
– It is a DWP trial
– Mr Nguyen describes the site as being a “little pick-me-up” for jobseekers, and not a serious test.
Under a threat of benefit sanctions?! Doesn’t sound like much of a pick-me-up!
Everything the JCP currently ‘ask’ (require) people to do (most of which is presented as and/or termed either ‘support’ or ‘help’) comes with the threat of benefit sanctions. This quiz is representative of current strategies being used in that its underlying raison d’etre is exactly what’s being talked about (above) – to ostensibly offer help and support, whilst at the same time adding-in conditionality with the aim of appearing to be propelling people in ‘the right’ direction (improving their soft skills) and/or being able to sanction them if/when they ‘fail’. Ideally to push them off benefits altogether, or at least for as many as possible for as much time as possible. Quite a few people are very well aware that this is the case (in each of the various categories of being unemployed we’re all too aware of the approach currently being deployed).
“We are doing further work in this area, expanding the trial across other parts of the country. We will be testing new interventions and focussing on the effects of some individual interventions.”
http://blogs.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/behavioural-insights-team/2012/12/14/new-bit-trial-results-helping-people-back-into-work/
Thank you – very useful info!
In last comment expressive writing and Pennebaker are mentioned his work is discussed quite well in BBC series Mind Changers recent programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rrc11
JUST DID THE PSYCH TEST WITH THE MOST EXTRTEME NEGATIVE ANSWERS AND AGAIN WITH NO ANSWERS, ONLY CLICKING ON NEXT BUTTON. NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROFILES 😉 AS A PSYCH MYSELF I’D SAY THIS IS JUST ABOUT GETTING PEOPLE TO ENGAGE WITH A LOAD OF DIFFERENT QUALITIES THEY MIGHT THEN USE ON APOPLICATION FORMS TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES. IT ISN’T A PSYCH TEST AS IT CLEARLY HAS ZILCH VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY. AS A COMPUTER BASED PERSONALITY TEST ITS NOT FIT FOR ANY POSSIBLE PURPOSE THAT I CAN SEE (AND I HAVE AN MSC IN OCCUPATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN EDUCATION/TRAINING). I ALSO HAVE DYSLEXIC KIDS AND KNOW THIS IS POTENTIALLY INTIMIDATING EVEN IF PEOPLE ARE BOTH CLEVER AND ENGAGED. AS A TOOL TO SUBJUGATE THE UNEDUCATED, ANXIOUS AND ILLITERATE – ITS GOT ITS USES I GUESS, BUT IN REALITY ITS JUST PHONEY PSYCHOBABBLE. IN THE RIGHT HANDS IT COULD POTENTIALLY FORM THE BASIS OF A GOOD COACHING SUPPORT SESSION BUT I DOUBT IT IS USED IN THAT WAY.
Root directory now appears to be locked – I get a 403.
How interesting. Glad I saved the PowerPoint then! Didn’t bother with the idiotic white papers – they’ll be available on the Tory party site.
Nice to know I’ve got their attention, though! lol
Although I broadly agree with you, there is one specific thing I must take issue with. I don’t think that we currently have enough information to make the statement that “There is no doubt at all that the point of this ‘test’ – and the process of which it is part – is to terrify unemployed people into compliance and to set many up to fail so that they can be ‘sanctioned’ and have their benefits stopped.” Even if this is indeed the outcome, speculations on the motivation behind it are (thus far) just that – speculations.
I’ve read the PowerPoint file, and that makes it pretty inescapable. I’ll install Dropbox tonight so I can upload it tomorrow for all to ‘enjoy’.
Careful now. The study is comparing outcomes with intervention, against outcomes with no intervention. The stated aim is to use the act of taking the test as a motivational aid, not to use the results of the test itself to decide on benefit levels. This seems reasonable to me, a bit like their earlier study on the effectiveness of generic vs personalized text message reminders for court appearances and fines.
However, in my opinion, speculation on motives based on picture choice in a powerpoint slide is a red herring.
The letter on the “two maggies” page is the *real* smoking gun here. On the reasonable assumption that it is genuine, it demonstrates that the initial motivation for developing the test is irrelevant. Whether conceived as benign or not, it is now being used as part of a mandatory set of actions, with the threat of benefit sanctions if you don’t complete them.
Well, I agree with the latter part at least! Using images of bailiffs, courtrooms and smartphone messages with fines hardly suggests benign motives, does it?
The image of the smartphone messages was probably presented in the context of previous “nudge” initiatives. They have done this as a trial.
The reason I’m not putting too much weight on the motivations behind the presentation is that I’m a big fan of so-called “steelman” (the opposite of strawman) argument tactics. If you can assume the best possible motives on behalf of your opponent rather than the worst, and still win the argument, then you’re very well set up, and it helps to concentrate the argument on the strongest points in your favour.
Fair enough. As you’ve pointed out, the fact that this ‘test’ is being forced on people under the threat of sanction is damning enough!
Would someone else please run through the 48 questions and see what happens if you deliberately select the socially ‘unacceptable’ answers (e.g., indicating you don’t listen to people, you harbour grudges, etc.). I did that a few minutes ago and the results are extremely revealing. Here’s the result:
Strength 1. Carefulness
You are a careful person. You do not say or do things that you might later regret.
Strength 2. Fairness
Treating all people fairly is one of your abiding principles. You do not let your personal feelings bias your decisions about other people. You give everyone a chance.
Strength 3. Critical Thinking
Thinking things through and examining them from all sides are important aspects of who you are. You do not jump to conclusions, and you rely only on solid evidence to make your decisions. You are able to change your mind.
Strength 4. Originality
Thinking of new ways to do things is a crucial part of who you are. You are never content with doing something the conventional way if a better way is possible.
Strength 5. Social Intelligence
You are aware of the motives and feelings of other people. You know what to do to fit in to different social situations, and you know what to do to put others at ease.
Crucially, all five of the ‘strength’ tell me things that are precisely the opposite of what I explicitly selected. Something here is seriously wrong, and saying that it is primarily a bit of fun to boost people is extremely facile, particularly when one might be sanctioned for non-compliance.
Absolutely – a number of people have done it and found no difference between selecting the most ‘acceptable’ answers and the least. The threat behind it makes this anything but a joke.
Dave, the site is actually working. It’s designed to display the top five most positive answers, not to show your score in each category. So why does this lead to this apparently nonsensical result?
If you select the most unacceptable answers for *every* category, then they all score the same and there is no relative ranking between the categories. You therefore get the top 5 picked at random – the same result as if you picked all good, or all neutral.
Try this instead: skip all the questions except question 5 (answer positively) and 6 (answer negatively). Since this gives you a good score on critical thinking, this should appear as your top category, with the rest arrayed in some order behind it.
Since the point score for each category is 6, plus the score for the positive question, minus the score for the corresponding negative question, you can now construct any ordering you like.
If you answer honestly, then you will get a range of results, and thus a crude ranking of your strengths, but it simply can’t cope with completely uniform responses.
Also, the site will not report on your weaknesses, which is consistent with its creator’s assertion that it’s supposed to be a “booster”.
It’s what they call “Neuro Linguistic Programming” (NLP) and the Telegraph run a story last year. The govt appointed a Behavioral Insights Team back in 2010 and a company called Goals UK are responsible for training Jobcentre staff. Goals UK also work with Work Programme providers. NLP, like CBT is designed to bring about a change in behaviours, but has been discredited as a pseudoscience by the great and the good. It has also been reported in the press that the CEO of Goals UK has a dubious background.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1fc548ce-ba39-11e1-aa8d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QtxEWSwc
Great info – thanks!
Reblogged this on Teesside Solidarity Movement and commented:
Shocking!
Here’s a link to Goals UK. They also work with prison staff and social workers
http://www.goalsuk.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68%3Aquantum-theme&catid=9%3Afrontpage&Itemid=109
Thanks – I can’t access the FT link because I don’t have a subscription.
Create a gmail address then sign up for free trial 🙂
… and housing associations!
I’ll try to find another story – I know the Guardian run one. If not I’ll copy and paste the FT article 😉
I think the thing I find so ironic that they see fairness as a strength pity they don’t value it themselves..
Well, they use the word a lot – that’s a different matter!
Took the test. My favourite question by far:
13. I have taken frequent stands in the face of strong opposition
Thank goodness I am not on JSA, otherwise I’m sure my advisor would have some strong questions to ask about that. What on earth is this?!?!
The ‘test’ actually gives the same personality profile whatever you do – i.e. if you allways click the ‘that’s me’ or ‘thats not me’ or simply next … the outcome is always the same! Shocking
See my reply to Dave, above – this is by design. If you answer the same to all questions, there is no relative ranking and you get the same answer.
This goes against every principle of factor analysis and questionnaire making
1. Wheres the scaling? without this answers would be the same in both directions- which seems to be the case for those who have tried it
2. reverse scaling- so to get clearer answers- but then wouldnt have this either if there is no scaling in the first place
3. you CANNOT assume that what people choose is correct and from this that person IS those things- these tests are time specific and mood specific
4. How does the list of qualitied match those for job choice and suitability? for example, highly spiritual you should be a priest then?? where is the relevance
There are so many things wrong with this system that its ludricous
thats my two cents anyway
I did the test and answered everything as negatively as possible. So that even though I stated that I rarely making people laugh (not true really, I hope), my results said:
Strength 3. Humour – You like to laugh and tease. Bringing smiles to other people is important to you. You try to see the light side of all situations.
The rest of my strengths are equally ludicrous based on the way I answered the questionnaire.
See replies above. The site reports your “best 5” categories. If you answer everything negatively, there is no relative ranking and you get the same result as for all-positive.
Critical thinking? Yes! This is critically evaluated! Stupid bastards! They shot themselves in the foot with that one! Next thing they will be taxing intelligence as a way out!!!