Bizarre test for RFK’s Health Department
Bizarre Test for RFK’s Health Department: A Recipe for Disaster
The recent revelation that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the incoming secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is using a bizarre test to determine who should work in his department has sent shockwaves throughout the scientific community. The test, which can be taken by anyone, consists of 17 pattern recognition questions, followed by word association exercises and a personality quiz. On its surface, this may seem like a harmless tool for gauging personality traits or aptitudes, but upon closer inspection, it reveals itself to be little more than a neo-psychological quackery.
The test asks participants to rank a series of attributes on how they gel with their psychic makeup, including whether they make people feel at ease or neglect their duties. It also presents a list of strange personal insecurities, asking participants to highlight the five that they identify with most. One option reads “I tend to have unstable and intense personal relationships,” while another states “I don’t have that much interest in having sexual experiences with another person.” These questions are not only unscientific but also potentially damaging, as they can lead individuals to question their own mental health or well-being.
The publishing company behind the test, ExamCorp, is run by Jordan Peterson, a psychologist turned right-wing gadfly. This development is particularly concerning given Kennedy’s history of promoting antivax conspiracy theories and his plans to remove fluoride from the water supply. With this test being used to determine who should work in the Health Department, it is likely that we will see more of the same kind of unscientific and harmful policies being implemented.
As one participant noted, “I don’t think we can hammer this point home hard enough. Robert F. Kennedy—a guy who dumped a bear carcass in Central Park—is set to take on a paramount role in the health policy of this country. Helping him round out his staff? Peterson, who is closer to the levers of power than ever before.” This statement highlights the disturbing implications of this development, as it suggests that individuals with questionable qualifications and backgrounds may be given positions of authority within the Health Department.
The use of this bizarre test also raises questions about the potential for discrimination and bias. The test’s reliance on subjective interpretations of personality traits and insecurities can lead to arbitrary and unfair conclusions being drawn about an individual’s suitability for a particular role. This could result in qualified individuals being excluded from positions based on their personal characteristics, rather than their skills or abilities.
Furthermore, the fact that this test is being used to determine who should work in the Health Department is particularly alarming. The Health Department is responsible for overseeing public health policy and ensuring that citizens have access to safe and effective healthcare services. It is imperative that individuals working within this department possess a strong understanding of scientific evidence and a commitment to evidence-based decision-making.
The appointment of RFK Jr. as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has already sparked widespread concern among public health experts and advocates. His history of promoting antivax conspiracy theories and his plans to remove fluoride from the water supply are clear indications that he is not committed to evidence-based decision-making. The use of this bizarre test to determine who should work in the Health Department only serves to further undermine confidence in Kennedy’s ability to lead the department effectively.
In conclusion, the use of a bizarre test to determine who should work in RFK Jr.’s Health Department is a recipe for disaster. This development raises serious concerns about the potential for unscientific and harmful policies being implemented within the department, and highlights the disturbing implications of this appointment. As we move forward, it is essential that we hold Kennedy’s administration accountable for their actions and ensure that they prioritize evidence-based decision-making in all aspects of public health policy.
The Test: A Closer Look
The test itself is a 17-question assessment that asks participants to rank a series of attributes on how they gel with their psychic makeup. This includes questions such as “Do you tend to be highly sensitive or do you have a ‘thick skin’?” and “Are you more of an introvert or extrovert?” The test also presents a list of 20 personal insecurities, asking participants to highlight the five that they identify with most.
Some examples of these questions include:
- I tend to have unstable and intense personal relationships
- I don’t have that much interest in having sexual experiences with another person
- I am more likely to be critical or perfectionistic than others
- I often feel anxious or nervous around new people
These questions are not only unscientific but also potentially damaging, as they can lead individuals to question their own mental health or well-being.
The Publishing Company: ExamCorp
ExamCorp is the publishing company behind the test. It was founded by Jordan Peterson, a psychologist turned right-wing gadfly. Peterson has been known for his extreme views on social issues and his willingness to push boundaries in order to further his own ideology.
Peterson’s involvement with ExamCorp raises serious concerns about the potential for bias and manipulation within the company. His extremist views have already led to controversy and criticism, and it is likely that these biases will be reflected in the products he produces.
The Implications
The use of this bizarre test to determine who should work in RFK Jr.’s Health Department has serious implications for public health policy in the United States. If individuals with questionable qualifications and backgrounds are given positions of authority within the department, it is likely that we will see more of the same kind of unscientific and harmful policies being implemented.
This could include a renewed push for antivax conspiracy theories, or the removal of fluoride from the water supply. Both of these outcomes would have serious consequences for public health in the United States, and highlight the need for evidence-based decision-making within the Health Department.
The Future
As we move forward, it is essential that we hold RFK Jr.’s administration accountable for their actions. This includes ensuring that they prioritize evidence-based decision-making in all aspects of public health policy.
We must also be vigilant in monitoring the activities of ExamCorp and Jordan Peterson, as their involvement with this test raises serious concerns about bias and manipulation within the company. By speaking out against these developments, we can help to ensure that public health policy is guided by scientific evidence rather than extremist ideology.
Iris
December 9, 2024 at 11:35 am
Can we really separate the personal from the professional when it comes to leadership in public health policy?
I’m reminded of a story about the brother of someone who passed away in emergency accommodation, and how his belongings were callously thrown away by the council. It’s a heart-wrenching tale that speaks to the need for compassion and understanding in our institutions.
In the context of Kennedy’s appointment, it’s essential to consider whether his use of this personality test is indicative of a broader disregard for the needs and well-being of those he serves. Is this merely a case of poor judgment, or does it reflect a deeper philosophy that prioritizes personal biases over evidence-based decision-making?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Can we really assume that Kennedy’s use of this test is an isolated incident, or are there more concerning signs beneath the surface?
Reference: https://homeideas.go4them.co.uk/lifestyle/councils-callousness-brothers-belongings-thrown-away-after-death-in-emergency-accommodation/
Alexandra
December 9, 2024 at 8:56 pm
Iris, your poignant question cuts to the heart of a complex issue that warrants careful consideration. Can we indeed separate the personal from the professional when it comes to leadership in public health policy? It’s a delicate balance, and one that requires great introspection and self-awareness.
As you astutely pointed out, Kennedy’s use of this personality test raises serious questions about his approach to decision-making. Is it merely a case of poor judgment, or does it reflect a deeper philosophy that prioritizes personal biases over evidence-based policy? These are the very concerns that I believe we must explore further.
In my opinion, true leadership in public health requires a deep empathy for those we serve, and a commitment to evidence-based decision-making. It’s a tall order, but one that is essential if we hope to create meaningful change in our communities.
I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on this matter, Iris. Your story about the brother of someone who passed away in emergency accommodation serves as a powerful reminder of the need for compassion and understanding in our institutions. It’s a message that I believe we must not forget as we navigate these complex issues.
To expand upon your point, I’d like to suggest that Kennedy’s use of this test may be indicative of a broader pattern of behavior. Perhaps it’s time for us to take a closer look at his background and track record, to see if there are other instances where he has prioritized personal biases over evidence-based policy.
By doing so, we can work towards creating a more compassionate and effective public health system that truly serves the needs of our communities. I believe that this is an imperative worth striving for, Iris. Thank you for sparking this important conversation!
Sophia
January 4, 2025 at 8:34 pm
The fervor surrounding this article is truly palpable, with each author bringing their unique perspective to the table! I must say, I’m thoroughly enthralled by Aniyah’s assertion that this exposé highlights the perils of unscientific approaches in public health policy – it’s a timely reminder of the importance of evidence-based decision-making.
But what really gets my blood pumping is Leon’s scathing critique of the test itself. I mean, who can resist a good “bad 1970s self-help book” analogy? It’s a clever way to drive home his point that we must consider the real-world impact of such policies, rather than getting caught up in abstract notions.
And then there’s Andres, ever the voice of reason and open-mindedness. He reminds us that even if something seems bizarre at first glance, it’s worth considering the potential benefits – after all, as he so astutely points out, Jordan Peterson is a psychologist with good intentions.
But what really gets my goat is Alexandra’s scathing assessment of Kennedy’s leadership style. I mean, who needs empathy and evidence-based decision-making when you can just wing it with some dodgy personality tests? It’s a chilling reminder that true leadership in public health requires more than just a charismatic smile.
And finally, Iris’s poignant reflection on the human cost of poor policy decisions is a stark reminder of the importance of compassion and understanding. I must admit, her question about whether leaders can truly separate their personal and professional lives is one that keeps me up at night – it’s a question that demands an answer, don’t you think, Kennedy?
So, to all our esteemed authors, I have but one question: what do you think drives someone like Kennedy to prioritize personality tests over evidence-based policy decisions? Is it a case of poor judgment, or something more sinister? And to Andres, can you tell me – do you really believe that an open mind and willingness to listen are enough to guide public health policy with integrity?
Andres
December 9, 2024 at 9:41 pm
Can we really say with certainty that a test, no matter how bizarre, can’t have any redeeming qualities? Perhaps there’s a way to modify or reinterpret the questions to make them more effective and less damaging?
It’s also worth noting that Jordan Peterson, the publisher behind the test, has been known for his work in psychology and his commitment to helping people understand themselves better. While his views may be extreme on some social issues, shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that he might have a good reason for creating this test?
Ultimately, I think it’s essential to approach this issue with an open mind and a willingness to listen to different perspectives. By doing so, we can work together to ensure that public health policy is guided by scientific evidence rather than extremist ideology.
Can we find common ground on this issue, or are we doomed to disagree?
Leon Adams
December 28, 2024 at 12:40 pm
just because someone has expertise in an area doesn’t mean they’re not capable of creating a mess. And what about the actual content of this test? Have you even read it? It’s like something out of a bad 1970s self-help book. “Can we really say with certainty that a test, no matter how bizarre, can’t have any redeeming qualities?” Are you serious? This is not just about some abstract concept of “redeeming qualities”. This is about real people being subjected to a potentially damaging and ineffective tool for public health policy. And don’t even get me started on the idea of “modifying or reinterpret[ing] the questions” to make them more effective. That’s just code for “let’s try to spin this so it sounds less ridiculous”. Give me a break.
Aniyah Acevedo
January 3, 2025 at 2:58 pm
Bravo for shedding light on this bizarre test and its implications for public health policy. It’s a timely reminder of how unscientific approaches can undermine our collective well-being, especially in times like these when misinformation seems to spread like wildfire.
Jace
January 8, 2025 at 7:02 pm
Oh man, I just had a good laugh reading this article. I mean, who comes up with this stuff? A test to determine who should work in the Health Department that’s based on 17 pattern recognition questions, word association exercises, and a personality quiz? Sounds like something my grandma would try to pass off as a “scientific” way of determining someone’s worth.
And let me tell you, I’ve seen some crazy stuff in my time working in healthcare, but this takes the cake. I mean, what kind of questions are they asking people? “Do you tend to have unstable and intense personal relationships?” Um, yeah, that’s just called being single with a social life, dude.
And don’t even get me started on Jordan Peterson. I’ve had the pleasure of watching some of his lectures online (mainly for entertainment purposes), and let’s just say he’s…an acquired taste. I mean, who needs a Ph.D. in psychology when you can just make stuff up and call it “research”?
But seriously though, this is some scary stuff. I’ve seen what happens when people with questionable qualifications and backgrounds get into positions of power, and it’s never pretty. We need evidence-based decision-making in healthcare, not some pseudo-scientific nonsense.
And to think that RFK Jr. is behind all this…well, let’s just say I’m not exactly thrilled about his appointment as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I mean, who promotes antivax conspiracy theories and thinks it’s a good idea to remove fluoride from the water supply? Sounds like someone who needs a reality check.
Anyway, I guess what I’m trying to say is that this whole thing is a recipe for disaster. Let’s hope that RFK Jr.’s administration gets their act together (or at least hires some competent people) before it’s too late.
Natalia
January 15, 2025 at 12:00 am
The eternal optimist, Jace. I love how you think that someone’s “social life” is equivalent to having “unstable and intense personal relationships.” You know what? That kind of thinking is precisely why we have a Health Department in the first place – because people like you are so quick to dismiss the complexities of human nature.
And as for Jordan Peterson, oh boy. I’ve had the displeasure of watching some of his lectures myself (not just for entertainment purposes, mind you). And let me tell you, he’s not just an acquired taste – he’s a whole meal of cognitive dissonance and pseudo-intellectual posturing. But hey, at least he’s entertaining.
But seriously, Jace, have you ever stopped to think that maybe RFK Jr.’s approach is not as crazy as it seems? I mean, what’s wrong with questioning the status quo and challenging the conventional wisdom in healthcare? You know what they say – “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” And if we’re talking about the Health Department here, then maybe it’s time to try something new.
And as for RFK Jr.’s qualifications, well… let’s just say that being a Kennedy isn’t exactly a bad starting point. I mean, have you seen the resumes of some of those other politicians? “Worked on Wall Street” or “ran a successful campaign”? Give me a break. At least RFK Jr. has some actual experience in the trenches, fighting for what he believes in.
But hey, that’s just my two cents. Maybe I’m just being cynical (like you accused me of). Maybe I’ve lost all faith in humanity and the institutions that are supposed to protect us. But one thing’s for sure – we need a good dose of skepticism and critical thinking in this world, not just some knee-jerk reactions based on what people like you “think” is right.
By the way, have you heard about the latest developments with the vaccine mandates? It seems that some states are trying to exempt themselves from federal regulations. I wonder what RFK Jr.’s stance is on that one…
Maggie
January 9, 2025 at 9:44 am
What a blast from the past! I stumbled upon an article from 2024 that’s left me feeling nostalgic for a time when our leaders were held to a higher standard. The battle for Britain’s favourite festive hit, as outlined in this fascinating piece here, serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of fact-based decision-making in our public institutions.
As someone who has spent years working in healthcare, I can attest to the dangers of relying on unscientific methods to inform policy decisions. The use of Jordan Peterson’s bizarre test to determine who should work in RFK Jr.’s Health Department is a recipe for disaster, as it prioritizes personal insecurities and subjective interpretations over evidence-based decision-making.
It’s alarming to think that individuals with questionable qualifications and backgrounds may be given positions of authority within the department, potentially leading to the implementation of unscientific and harmful policies. As we move forward, it’s essential that we hold RFK Jr.’s administration accountable for their actions and ensure that they prioritize evidence-based decision-making in all aspects of public health policy.
But what does this say about our society as a whole? Are we willing to compromise on the values that have always guided us, or will we continue down a path of unscientific reasoning and extremism? The battle for Britain’s favourite festive hit may seem like a trivial matter, but it serves as a microcosm for the larger issues at play in our public institutions. As we navigate this uncertain future, let us hold onto the principles that have always guided us: fact-based decision-making, critical thinking, and a commitment to evidence-based policy.