Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So once a year our job sends random people to go see a mental therapist. I did not know this till i was random selected. This is volunteer and you can say no and keep your job. The idea is to see what state of mind their employees are after long monotheist workloads and environment we are in. What the heck got nothing to lose here, and pay day off work to go visit this shrink.
First question is "What Steps would you take if you wanted to kill somebody?" Caught me surprised but answered like this.
Give me an example. She said a Bat, and location is at person home, late at night.
So my steps were
1. Go to local thrift shop by a random bat with cash.
2. Plastic wrap the bat with random grocery bags, wrap it dont tape it as it can be traced down to the roll and brand.
3. Wear disposable gloves and long paper rain coat
4. Up on entering the house make sure your entry point is not sand, dirt or anything that leaves a impression. If you do go barefoot because you cant trace barefeet to a specific person other then their shoe size.
5. DO your business quickly and isolated as possible.
6. Drive 50 miles out and burn the cloths and gloves and the plastic wrap.
7 Donate the bat back to local thrift shop.
She goes ok.. so why wouldnt you think the court couldnt find you.
1. Use cash as its harder to track and thrift shops dont keep tabs on what was sold and no cams.
2. Plastic is easy to burn but hard for blood to stick too, thus leaving the bat clean.
3. Gloves protect finger prints, paper rain coat keeps DNA and blood splatter off you. Easy to burn and no trace.
4. If you wear shoes you leave a impression of your shoe size, maker and that can be easy to trace down to where it was bought and who bought it, Unless you get it from the thrift shop.
5. No witness
6. Location too far for average joe to burn things
7. What bat?
Quite for about 10 mins.
Next question.
Your suicidal and only thing is in this room is the chair and my desk, its impossible to kill your self in here, would you think?
I said yes you can.
She replies how?
1. Flip the chair over feet up.
2. Swan dive chest first on to the chairs legs.
3. Problem solved.
She concluded that i am a very logical thinker and i really should visit the local detectives to give them some insights on how to get away with murder.. I laugh so hard about that. But at the end of the day and conversation, she was impress of my thinking skills to solve problems and how to fix them quickly with the tools available.
So with that said, is their really a problem thinking the logical way vs just inside the box?
I guess you could say you gave "logical" answers to her very ridiculous questions.
I'm surprised at the questions you were asked.....reeealy surprised
.
What kind of psychologist (or mental therapist) would ask those questions is beyond me, unless they're psychotic themselves.
Seems to me that the "therapist" is looking for ideas and opinions on the best way to commit a crime.
What would she have said if you'd flat out said you're not a murderer, nor do you think like one.
What would she have said if you told her you would never have thoughts of suicide, as you see a value in every life?
Would you have been deemed "unfit" because of it?
Would that be considered as thinking "just inside the box"?....and is that a bad thing?
I guess if it's a requirement to see this therapist with a paid day off, putting up with the silliness of the whole thing might be worth it.
I wouldn’t have accepted the offer for an exam. But if already so once I was aware of the nature of the questions I would have determined not to go on with the interview. I don’t see any personal benefit on your part from having participated in the interview. But I do see some downsides.
Wow. The only thing I can think about this is that, if a serial murderer were caught and they asked him if he had tried getting help, he might say, "Well, actually, I was fine and had no homicidal tendencies until I went to this one therapist, and she started me thinking, 'Hey, I'm really good at this!'"
It sounds like this person had an agenda. With workplace violence in the news (did it ever leave?) your employer may want some feedback from employees that their workplace isn't at risk. Still. Unless you work for the government or are in law enforcement, the questions are strange.
Wow. The only thing I can think about this is that, if a serial murderer were caught and they asked him if he had tried getting help, he might say, "Well, actually, I was fine and had no homicidal tendencies until I went to this one therapist, and she started me thinking, 'Hey, I'm really good at this!'"
I told my answer to a good friend unrelated to my work place, and he was like, you already had this planned out didnt you.. i died laughing.. with out a step, said how much for your wife... end of conversation.. but we got a good laugh about it.
Quote:
Sollaces It sounds like this person had an agenda. With workplace violence in the news (did it ever leave?) your employer may want some feedback from employees that their workplace isn't at risk. Still. Unless you work for the government or are in law enforcement, the questions are strange.
You right with all the shootings going on in the work place, think they want to see what state of mind we are in.
Quote:
jghorton I'm curious. What is a "monotheist workload?" ... sounds pretty illogical to me.
Try to spell monotonous.. but spell check thought up another word..
IMHO, the question wasn't ridiculous, it was chosen for it's shock value. That triggers a reaction, puts you off balance. You might not recover yourself quickly enough to lie in your answer.
A person who doesn't have as tight a grip on their emotions might not be able to organize their thoughts about it. Would go off on a tangent and bring up their horror over it, be unable to think of a method, be unable to plan ahead about it. A person who happens to be more of a clinical practical thinker might answer the question as you did. At the most extreme end of the scale you have a sociopath who can plan and carry out murder without feeling any emotions about it.
Maybe they were simply trying to identify who tended to be a practical thinker and who wasn't. Different jobs at that workplace are going to be easier or harder for different thinkers. They can build on those qualities when it seems like a better fit. If the job is monotonous and dull, a more emotional person might get more and more frustrated and stressed about it over time. A very rational even-keel person might not let it bother them. They can easily drop work at work, not think about it much, go along fairly contented for a much longer time.
Why would some employer's consultant want to do this sort of testing? Someone who is more "on the edge" emotionally might not be able to handle the negative aspects of that workplace as well. Instead of handling the hard aspects of their job in a calm rational detached manner, they end up getting more and more distressed over all of it. They end up needing more support from that company's assistance or health care programs as a result. If there are more people on an emotional roller coaster because of the workplace conditions, that tells the company something should probably change (healthier employees means lower company costs and higher productivity).
I believe there is an emotional aspect to everything we do, everything we react to, everything we decide. There is also a coldly rational aspect to all these things. People are individual; some lean more toward the intuitive, the emotional and others just the opposite. Then there are different balances between the two. It also changes as their lives change. I know personally how much job stress affects the rest of my life, how I handle things like decisionmaking, relationships with others, how I take care of myself, and how I see the world from day to day. The worse things are at work, the worse they can seem the rest of the time. My tolerance for one more little thing can change drastically.
Last edited by Parnassia; 07-11-2018 at 02:51 PM..
That is the most bizarre story I've heard in some time.
Starting with the "random" psychological exam. Seems to me that would violate all kinds of HIPAA laws.
Like what? The "test" was dealing with a purely hypothetical question, possibly just for statistical purposes, not a diagnostic one. What specific, personal medical information would be shared with others as a result?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
