Tests are boring, you have to be npc enough to sit through one in a first place.,(reply>), @lymphy12 Hey, props to you if your gut instinct or nonlinquistic sense for a man's mettle is intuitive to you with a track record of working out well. No love here of narrow metrics, of pencil pushing mediocrity. Of boxing human value into a questionnaire. But if your contempt of tests is this visceral, spell it out for Lex's audience. Contempt is educational, maybe yours earned even if we don't agree. Think this thread is done for me but good luck in your doings. There's enough out there to piss us off proper all the time but Lex's show is for getting into it deep.,(reply>), @Michael Hunter I don't think you need a test to figure out if some one is up to the challenge, the rest is history.,(reply>), Okay. So if you cared to create a rigorous methodology to figure out the cognitive differences and similarities between humans to discover new or deepen existing insights or at least invalidate erroneous ones, what approach would you use? If you were in the position of a researcher what would you do from scratch? Yes tests can be trash, superficial in structure and flawed in their axioms. There is a limit to the utility of a test. However a great deal of care goes into formulating an excellent one. In any case, a sit down test is one type of test. In a boot camp, on a construction site or in social circle they are also many "tests," and the purpose of any test is to see what you can or can not do because there is hell to pay when you fail and it's not a test.