I heard of a psychological test that is frequently conducted in job interviews. The question is: “Can you connect all the points with only four lines?”
The applicant thinks this should be easy and starts:
Wrong! Pressure mounts. The applicant tries again:
Wrong again! The psychologist gniffles. The applicant starts sweating and starts again:
Arrgh!
The applicant gives up and the triumphant psychologists explains: “You see, the test is to measure whether or not you can think out-of-the-box. The answer is simple. You see, this is how you do it.” He draws on the the paper the four line connection, like this:
The psychologist is in control and starts lecturing how thinking out-of-the-box means that you look beyond the limits of what initially seems to be the border and how...bla...bla...bla.
This upsets me. The psychologist probably never came up with the answer himself. Somebody else (cleverly) once did, and everyone who read a couple of
Interviewing Applicants for Dummies since then knows the answer.
In fact, I truly believe that the test merely shows that the applicant has come well-prepared to the interview and knows this question from reading lots of
What Questions Can I Expect in a Job Interview books. So, arguably it is not a bad question for the purpose of ensuring that the applicant prepares well for formal events.
My answer to the psychologist: “Sir, I can do it with a single line!”
“Show me then”, he says. And I draw:
“Ha, funny. But, no, that is cheating,” he answers, “of course, the lines must be straight.”
To this I reply: “OK, then, I can do it with three lines.” He looks at me with a skeptical grin, but I have his attention. I draw and explain at the same time:
The psychologists stares at the paper for a while and finally he manages: “that is interesting, I have never seen such a solution. I guess you are using mathematical trickery on me”.
At this point it is worth mentioning that psychologists hired to conduct interviews generally suck at maths. If they were good with maths, they would be employed in more interesting psychological research, for example involving cognition, disorders or something else that requires serious statistical analysis.
Noticing how he is now all ears, I continue with the bulldozer technique: “Sir, I am just thinking out-of-the-box, you see. Actually, I am convinced I can still do it with a single line. One straight line!”
He looks uncertain now and says, “that seems rather impossible.” I draw:
As an encore, I give yet another single-line solution to the problem:
“Well, hmmm, I guess all those solutions could classify as quite out-of-the-box indeed,” he says. By now he is very much in doubt what to do with me, because I did not answer the question correctly according to the procedure. This is unsettling to the psychologist, because (you guessed it) he is not very much an out-of-the-box person himself.
Whilst he is contemplating his ordeal, I feel elated and continue for the knock-out. I come up with my final solution. “In fact, dear Sir, I don't want your job”. A brief sigh of relief from the psychologist, the procedure is safe. But then I continue: “I also have one more solution to the problem, where I do not need any lines to connect all the nine dots together. Here it is, and it reflects very much what I think of the whole interview.”
Can you imagine what I would do next? Are you out-of-the-box?
Daar was ik 16 jaar geleden geweest, maar toen was het een grote teleurstelling: met de naderende Olympische Spelen (1992) was Barcelona een groot bouwwerf. En verder was het er vies en heet. Tijd voor een 2de poging.
