[cryptome] Re: Wanna Be a Spy Wanna Be?: Take the MI5 Intelligence Test

  • From: doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:16:39 +0000

Hi Michael,
We all get examined all the time, and we all examine one another. It is how we share information, learn about ourselves and others. When one goes to the doctor, one examines him/her, just as much as he/she examines you...but for different purposes. He/she and you wish to discover what is wrong with you and how to make it better. You wish to make sure that he/she knows what he/she is talking about, and has suitable qualifications to examine you to the right standard, and can explain what is wrong and what is required for your rendition to your previous self, in a way in which you understand .

Regarding the MI5 examination. I wouldn't bother...you will only be disappointed. It is a marketing ploy...nuffink more devious than that. When I went up there the other day, I noticed a couple of things, the site appeared to be very busy...and on the tv later on they were discussing it in some news programme or other, how busy the site had been. None of the reporters did very well in the test either. No wonder we never get much good news these days and it always comes too late.

MI5 needs recruits at the moment and wants people of a certain kind with certain proclivities, interests, penchants, hobbies etc. as it moves into the Brave New World of international internet fraud, money laundering, gun running and drug smuggling. As well as being young, and having certain mental attributes, one also requires certain physical attributes, such as not being too tall or too small, being one legged, one eyed, or suffering from a big head and bowdy legs, though they also cater for the physically disabled, women are not an afterthought these days either, highly valued. This is either because such people don't get involved in international fraud, or because they are more noticeable in a crowd. One is positively vetted of an enhanced nature of course, can't have terrorists, criminals and such like working for the state. After all, they do work under the rule of law.

Interesting to note that the website is free of cookies, trackers and such like. GCHQ and MI6 are the same. Still, I suppose it is no more than to be expected from a democratic government with a democratic civil service, which believes in the civil liberties and human rights of its citizens.


On 21/01/15 20:13, Michael Shelton wrote:

Dear Sirs,
  I looked at the test but did not take it yet.
   When I was still in school(UCD),I took
a course in experimental psych.Where we took tons of various tests,and learned to design testing for certain behaviours or ideologies of interest,without it being apparent what we are looking for.
   I have a feeling that this one from MI5
is like that,what they deduce from it isn't
reading and comprehension.Devious test
design is an art and a science(sounds familiar,eh?)and should be carefully constructed in order to leave the cadets
totally in the dark as to the intent.
    You can always tell this from a test
that does not have a hidden agenda........
Expect to win!
Michael Shelton, I.A.O.

On 20 Jan 2015 04:24, "doug" <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Hi Ryan,
    Congratulations...:-) .

    I think you will find that it is one of those open-ended sort of
    exercises, where there are a number of different outcomes,
    dependent upon what you look at, examine, understand, assimilate,
    categorise and then memorise, before you come out with the
    conclusions.  The scenario also panders to ones prejudices...what
    would you do if caught up in a particular situation where thinking
    on your feet is needed, and where long a well as short term
    consequences have to be considered.

     That is why they use a multiple choice question format. The
    problem with multiple choice format exams, is that though they are
    easy to mark, they don't have the flexibility of allowing for the
    development of fluid scenarios.  The CHIS needs to be looked at
    quite carefully for example.  Most people go for the names and
    dates of births and car numbers and types of cars, before they
    really knuckle down to the wheres and whens. This is because we
    are brought up with the Hollywood version of the spy hero who has
    an infallible memory, is athletic, well-trained in the use of
    gizmos and is one of the good guys who gets rid of the bad guys.
    There is an element of truth in that outlook (or is it instilled
    set of prejudices) but it is only an element.

     There is also a time factor on it.   It needs to be looked at a
    number of times, so that the examinee gets a better understanding
    of what is being asked, what to look for, how to put it together.
    A marriage of induction and deduction techniques. They do allow
    examinees the opportunity to take it a number of times, until the
    time is used up.

    Now, what do you think...and our colleagues think, was the purpose
    of the exercise?

    On 20/01/15 07:28, Ryan Carboni wrote:

        I got five.

        I suspect it's impossible to get eight out of eight, or they'd
        have to deal with people demanding high pay since they scored
        so high.

Other related posts: