molloyjh wrote: » It often depends on the tests themselves. I've never been a fan of the MB stuff myself, but I (and everyone I worked with at the time) did do an EQI test last year that was quite in depth and very accurate. We all agreed it was very useful. MB is far too high level to be hugely meaningful in my experience.
mfceiling wrote: » For the "unoffice" "unacronym" brigade....what are EQI and MB tests?
mfceiling wrote: » So it's basically crap? I like being self employed cause I know that I'm already crazy and that's something everyone else has to live with.
errlloyd wrote: » It's a good way for you to tell management what you already know about yourself. Most of the MB questions have a sort of obvious angle to them, so if you're a lone wolf IT hot shot and you'd rather be left to your own devices, you can sort of answer in a way that gives you an INTJ type (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Judging). Maybe HR see that and stop trying to force you into teams. That is basically my only use for it anyway.
Zzippy wrote: » It's collecting personal data for unknown purposes that can be used at any time in the future. I was being flippant earlier, but I have refused to do in-house psychometric testing before. I realise if you're going for a job you haven't much choice, but once in a job they can get stuffed. I've had ample experience of how utterly useless and inept our HR dept is so there's no way I'm giving them more of my personal data.
Deleted User wrote: » I'm emailing this to your HR department.
pickarooney wrote: » Only marginally less ****ing stupid than graphology then.
stephen_n wrote: » Just drove through Bray and every second lamppost has a no campaign poster. Not one yes campaign poster in the entire town. The No campaign are definitely winnng this from a funding perspective.
errlloyd wrote: » I just don't get posters. They're a little bit useful for local elections, where potentially new members of the constituency don't even know the names of the councillors and could benefit a bit from the reminder. But this is a referendum. What are the posters meant to be. Some sort of dick measuring competitions to show who got more money from US interest groups. No one is going to make a decision on whether they think its a baby or bunch of cells based on a red poster that says vote no.
irishbucsfan wrote: » The yes campaign only started fundraising for those posters yesterday, and they've done pretty well to be fair. €312,000 as of now. That's a lot of dead tree and ink!
molloyjh wrote: » I think you're looking at this through the prism of rational thinking. Some people who are on the fence may only need a little nudge in one direction or the other. Tugging at heart strings with emotive imagery and language can do just that for a lot of people, regardless of fact or reason. And this may come down to that couple of percent one way or the other....
irishbucsfan wrote: » Yeah I'm completely with you there. I donated because I'm sound and also definitely not a dickhead because I have cool and trendy beliefs, but I have to wonder if the marginal benefit between €100,000 and €200,000 on posters might pale in comparison to other potential avenues. Surely there's some dodgy Canadian digital PR company we could be giving this money to!
Zzippy wrote: » I'm already sick of sponsored posts ads popping up on my FB feed for the no campaign. I report them as inappropriate to me but they keep popping up. As far as I can see the no campaign is already spending heavily on social media targeting.
Deleted User wrote: » Spotted a few of those myself. The most notable part of either campaign I've seen out and about so far are repeal t-shirts and badges. Few pro-life posters on the way into town this week alright. For the most part though - I'm not touching this debate with either side of a 10 foot barge poll.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Why?! Do you hate barge polls?!