“Walking around” on this site you will very soon notice and become aware of what kind of firm Gordon Consulting is.
We are behavior scientists and psychologists, specialized in personality assessment of people applying for advanced positions or training possibilities.
Welcome to get in touch – preferably by e-mail (we are not always at the phone)!
And very welcome to “walk around” on this site!
Each individual is always mirroring and reflecting his significant surroundings. With very, very few exceptions we are all formed, not only by society itself, but even more by our close relations to those people that have meant, and still mean, a lot to us. Significant important persons are generally the Father, the Mother, the Siblings, the Close Relatives, the Close Friends, the Spouse, the Important Teacher and the Important Boss. We are in fact always acting out most of all those fields of relationships that all those significant people have helped us to create. The more united and simplified all those people and their relationships to each other have seemed to us, the more confidence and trust in life it has created. But at the same time, life could appear as rather superficial and very easy, not letting you see all dangers and threats that also exist.
Homo Sapiens = The Knowing human? Well, not exactly. Most humans are unaware of many of their own driving forces and the consequences of their actions. For different reasons we try to avoid a deeper self-insight. This was stated by Friedrich Nietzsche and has since been confirmed by several other scientists. Basically it means that you can never rely on statements about oneself that are now and then proclaimed by certain persons. The sentence “I know myself better than anyone else” is mostly to be regarded as an expression of a wish or a hope, but it is not certain that it is true. It is probably not true at all.
(This text will soon become continued….)
In 1991 I attended an international conference about Aviation Psychology, where I also presented a “paper” headlined “And how about the personality of the expert”? Here are a few extracts from my paper:
“Is the science of psychology very old or very young? It depends on what you regard as relevant and how you would like to define words like science and psychology. In our modern history many have chosen to set the start of psychology as a science around 1870, when the German philosopher Wundt established his psychological laboratory. The well controlled experiments were the essence of the new scientific era and as a philosophical and meta-theoretical background you could easily find the positivistic approach and the dominance of the natural sciences.
So called objectivity, where different kinds of measurements were to be found, was the concept to be honored. The man behind the work was of less interest than the work itself: the techniques used were the primary field of interest, not the man or woman behind them…..the focus was strictly on the techniques, the measuring tools. The ambitions were primarily to develop something that could act similar to the well functioning automatic machines…to find a highly automated technique of psychology, almost like the dream of creating the fully automated and computer directed aircraft. The psychologist could then step into a more modest role of being an engineer behind the machines and their efficiencies.
But according to my point of view the psychologist can not hide behind the use of so called objective tools of measurements. We are the ones who select those tools, and trying to avoid our own personal involvements is not a proof of safety. There is no test instrument, or any other tool, created and developed that has the corresponding ability and sensibility as a living human being. But there is a special requirement embedded for a psychologist when he or she is investigating another human being: the psychologist has to act with a certain amount of self-criticism, natural introspective points, and a trained sense of discovering all or most of the more or less hidden events happening during the investigating process between the two persons.”
Who is he or she in the cockpit, flying the airplane? Who is the Sea Captain navigating the ship at sea? Who is the chairman of the board in the company? Who is the selected CEO taking us on the ride of the same company? Who is the surgeon that in a few hours from now will go deep into my body to hopefully fix something that went wrong? Who is going to become the next President of USA?
And who is the psychologist behind all those psychological tests and other investigation tools?
Very important questions, are they not?
Nowadays we are used to it. There are lots of education and training programs and there are even more professions requiring psychological suitability certificates prior to entrance. There are also lots of psychological test factories from which it is possible to rent or to buy tests for selection of people. And those who sell selection services to companies and organizations and to individuals are often called experts. Some of those experts have nice sounding titels such as Licensed psychologists or Ph D or both of them. And when you visit them you have to open up, providing the expert with your thoughts and your wishes, your successes and your mistakes, your mental abilities and more. The expert wants to have a real good and close look at you.
But who has got a good and close look at the expert? Who is that man – or woman – behind the nice titles? Has he or she ever been tested by someone else?
In most cases I would say no. The titles and the general work experiences are mostly good enough. But is it really good enough?
A few days ago I talked to an experienced airline pilot that had applied to a Flight Instructor Course at a Swedish Flying Training Organization (FTO). And the FTO representative said that it was mandatory to first undergo a psychological suitability screening process.
OK, and off he went to a small Swedish organization selling psychological selection services to the aviation industry.
Here he spent three hours solving different cognitive tests including a ten minutes (!) long interview. This interview included two main questions:
a) Why do you think that you will become a good enough Flight Instructor, and
b) How many flying hours have you spent flying single engine airplanes?
That was all.
After a couple of days he was called by the expert (a psychologist), who told him that he had not reached the qualifications due to a weak performance on the simultaneous capacity test.
But how about the result of the other tests?
Well, they were good, above average.
So, the only low result was on the simultaneous capacity test?
Yes. And good-bye.
The phone call went on for one minute and ten seconds.
When I heard about this I became almost furious.
What is the matter with some of those so called experts? One single test overrules every other information parts. And what about the reliability and the validity of the simultaneous test?
And what is going on in the minds of the experts? Who is clever and who is not? Who knows enough about flying skills – and of the real requirements of a Flight Instructor?
Be careful when you turn to a so called expert. And it is not wrong to, in advance, ask the expert of his/her experiences and of the requirements of the training program or the job you are applying to – and also of which methods the expert will use when you are to become examined.