Can one, with today’s psychodiagnostic methods, determine the suitability of a candidate for a job, in a matter of hours or days, more efficiently than the employer could with the help of his general knowledge of human nature?

The employer may have a very good knowledge of human nature, able to size up the total situation intuitively in a few seconds.

Naturally you can’t acquire a knack like this from any method.

There are, however, employers who are anything but good judges of men.

In this case a careful and conscientious psychodiagnosis is the only right thing.

Anyway, it is better than nothing, and certainly better than the employer’s illusions and projections.

Are we right to oppose the use of psychodiagnostics in the selection of candidates, or is it simply another futile attempt to turn back the wheel of history?

It would be plain stupid to oppose the use of psychodiagnostics, for these tests are so widely used today that nobody can fight against them.

By reusing them one puts oneself in a false position from the start, as in certain cases of refusal to testify in court.

But if you are faced with a good judge of men, he will extract your painful secrets from your trouser pocket with the greatest skill without your knowing it, and do it much better than was ever done by a psychodiagnostic method.

We would like to ask you for a short prognosis concerning the further development of these methods and their influence on society.

I am no prophet, and I cannot predict the future of our society.

I can only tell you that I hope for a further improvement in psychodiagnostic methods and in the understanding of man in general, as contrasted with the other possibility that any man may be pushed into any kind of job anywhere.

Anything that promotes the understanding of one’s fellow men is welcome to me. ~Carl Jung, CW 18, Page 637

Liked it? Take a second to support Mr. Purrington on Patreon!