Here is what it was like in these cases I interviewed. Both provided several, maybe 6, online assessments of intellectual and emotional health. Think of these like IQ tests, but they are divergent tests instead of convergent tests. That means they are testing for things like vocabulary and creativity instead of multiple choice with a prior identified accepted answer.

After testing at the hedge fund I was able to see my scores and assessments. The other place is an elite military group, and I was not allowed to see my scores unless I accepted the job. The military group followed the on screen tests by a one on one with a psychologist.

I passed both assessments but chose to not accept either job due to unrelated conditions like a competing job offer, bad timing, life conditions.

Still interested in boosting personal effectiveness with teammates who apply some of those ideas? Email in profile.

PS. You don’t really binary pass/fail the assessments. They tend to inform whether and how you and others can complement or guardrail each other on mission as a team.

It's easiest to tell when someone is in a mildly stressful situation, and to see if they can focus on the task and evaluate tactical options to move forward, or if they get defensive.

Also, hello username buddy.

Defensiveness or stress tolerance or problem solving are not objectivity

>A human being’s very sense of self is intimately tied up with his or her identity group’s status and beliefs. Unsurprisingly, then, people respond automatically and defensively to information that threatens their ideological worldview. We respond with rationalization and selective assessment of evidence — that is, we engage in confirmation bias, giving credit to expert testimony we like and find reasons to reject the rest.

>Political scientists Charles Taber and Milton Lodge experimentally confirmed the existence of this automatic response. They found that partisan subjects, when presented with photos of politicians, produce an affective “like/dislike” response that precedes any sort of conscious, factual assessment as to who is pictured.

>In ideologically charged situations, one’s prejudices end up affecting one’s factual beliefs. Insofar as you define yourself in terms of your cultural affiliations, information that threatens your belief system — say, information about the negative effects of industrial production on the environment — can threaten your sense of identity itself. If it’s part of your ideological community’s worldview that unnatural things are unhealthful, factual information about a scientific consensus on the safety of vaccines or GMOs feels like a personal attack.

If you are objective, you are not threatened by surprising new information, even if it might have some negative implications that jump to mind. You evaluate it against every other relevant information source you have on the topic, sometimes requiring more complex chains of information, and assign a level of trust to the new info.