I never expected that job hunting would be rejected due to personality tests. Recently, media interviews with multiple college graduates revealed that in addition to gender discrimination, regional discrimination, and first degree discrimination, personality test results were also taken into consideration. Personality tests are not really new. However, the representative MBTI test has become a popular topic across the internet, becoming a top tier topic of conversation among the general public. In recent years, it seems to be the first time this has happened: even if you don't know what Type 16 personality is, you will always hear of Type i (introverted personality) and Type e (extroverted personality). However, even as a tool for individuals to understand themselves, its scientific validity is still debated to this day, and many netizens also hold a mentality of entertainment over seriousness, let alone using it as a "hard lever" for recruitment. There are two underlying logics behind using personality tests for recruitment: one is that the test results reflect personality traits. It may not be fair to say that it has no psychological foundation, but even for someone without much professional knowledge, its one sidedness is not difficult to imagine. For example, the test content is very simple, and all options are binary. How can the richness and complexity of human beings be so simply "refined" and "modeled" as the saying "a thousand people, a thousand faces, a hundred people, a hundred natures"? Furthermore, test results may also vary over time, and to what extent can the psychological state during the response be reflected as "personality"? This inevitably raises doubts. Another logic, it just sounds reasonable: 'A certain job requires a certain personality'. In other words, people who do not possess this personality trait are not suitable for a certain job. This viewpoint is quite marketable, but the problem is that it ignores the fluidity of personality and underestimates its adaptability. Different objects, occasions, and contexts can also present a person in different ways. For example, a well-known actor who has always been quiet and reserved in reality may leave an impression on the audience on the screen, but it is extremely humorous and funny. For example, some people believe that I cannot be a good journalist, but there are exceptions around me: wherever there is a need to do news, it can change instantly. This is not a complicated principle, and some employers probably understand it. Ultimately, it is still too much pursuit of efficiency and too much belief in "probability" - the labor market supply exceeds demand, the unequal status of applicants and recruiting units, and information asymmetry give the latter the confidence to be "picky". However, the so-called "probability theory" and "efficiency theory" may ultimately be wishful thinking. Faced with the practice of 'testing people', job seekers can also 'reverse engineer' by guessing the 'ideal answer' and making 'against their will choices', giving rise to various versions of' personality testing clearance techniques'. As many netizens commented on this topic, "I can become any personality I want." As a personality test for entry, it is not just a scientific question. It is also worth noting that vague personality tests may become the "armor" for other forms of discrimination? After all, compared to unfair barriers and requirements that cannot be openly stated, personality tests can still use the guise of science and call them "job requirements", which more covertly infringe on the rights and interests of workers. Not long ago, the Ministry of Education issued the Notice on Doing a Good Job in the Employment and Entrepreneurship Work of 2025 National Ordinary College Graduates, which clearly stated that it is strictly prohibited to release demand information that violates the national provisions on gender, registered residence, education and other discriminatory provisions. Is this type of information involved in personality tests? How to conduct external supervision on the program? Is there a legal relief mechanism in place? These question marks all rely on being straightened one by one in practice. Employment equity is a huge issue that requires every detail to be maintained. In terms of recruitment criteria, any test has its limitations and can only be used as a reference. An objective and reliable "ruler" for personnel cannot be separated from the examination from multiple perspectives and the application of various means. If everything is based on one's temperament, the result is probably a 'double loss'. (New Society)