- Sep 4, 2012
This is an appeal to authority fallacy. There are a lot of intelligent people who can make it through a rigorous PhD program, do lots of complex research, but are utterly inept when it comes to dealing with real people outside of the sterile bubble of academia. You can crank out a bunch of lengthy research papers and fancy statistical graphs, but none of that means shit if you can't reliably and effectively apply any of it to real world situations; the human psyche doesn't neatly conform to statistical charts and tables. Believe me—the world of psychology is loaded with intelligent, well-intentioned people, but lots of them are quacks nonetheless. Once you learn to become aware of such bullshit, you can easily spot it from great distances.I've said this over and over again, this test was created by people who understand human behavior and psychology better than any of us ever will. They have PhD's in the subject and didnt just pull these questions/answers out of thin air just to pick on poor debt-ridden CTI students.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of the BQ in future hiring bids. I wonder what the FAA sniffers will say if a currently rejected applicant passes the BQ next time. If the FAA has decided that you don't have the right qualities as of now, how can you suddenly have "the right stuff" for the next bid? Well, they didn't mind administering a BQ that contradicted a bunch of people's WQ ATSAT scores, so who cares if there's no logic?
So that leaves us with a few options regarding the BQ:
1) The BQ will be tweaked because it is currently flawed.
2) If the BQ rejects an applicant and later accepts the same applicant without any tweaks, it is flawed.
3) Future applicants will game the system and pass the BQ, thus demonstrating that the BQ is an unreliable, easily manipulated, steaming pile of dung.