Ha! One could think that the psychological screening is meaningless... until you are involved in hiring people. Of course, 95% candidates will pass, otherwise humanity would be doomed
> What are your strengths and weaknesses,.. hey what is this a psychological scan?
That's exactly what it is, and it's important. It's not helpful over the long run if we hire someone who can crank out good code, but their mindset negatively infects the rest of the team, causing morale to drop and people to leave.
I give technical interviews, but I'm also evaluating soft skills while I do it. I would rather have a team with ok-to-good technical skills, than a team with a rockstar prima donna who sabotages the cohesiveness of the whole.
Very little empirical evidence supports it, despite people parroting how "useful" it is. You're also teaching people to BS about themselves to get a job, perverting the entire thing.
If you want to psychologically analyze people, use a method which is actually supported empirically instead of the "do what every other pseudo-psychologist does" method. Big 5, for one, actually has some empirical evidence supporting it, but is barely ever used.
On the other hand, if you can actually figure people out in an hour under a single set of constraints, somehow being able to extrapolate that to the work environment as a whole, while also trying to put the work environment in a much better light than it actually is: quit your IT job now and make millions selling books.
