I think I would dispute the characterization of this as pseudo-scientific. The analogue balloon risk task is well validated, if in some ways poorly understood. That is, while standard economic risk models don't map onto it very well, it does correlate fairly substantially with real-world risky behaviors (so again, not economic risk where there is variance of outcomes, but more like the kind of risk taking where there are predictably bad outcomes, like trying heroin).
On the other hand, the use of these measures by big corps very well might be pseudo-scientific. I generally object to psychometrics being applied to prospective employees; it feels very dystopian to me. I also know that these measures require more subtle interpretation--and caution--than you're likely to get from anyone in HR, especially when we are talking about making inferences about individuals rather than groups of individuals.
Why you are being down-voted is beyond me. Your response is reasoned, clear, and open-minded, as well as informed. A citation might improve it, but as it stands, its a fine exemplar of the kinds of comments we should be promoting here on HN.
On the other hand, the use of these measures by big corps very well might be pseudo-scientific. I generally object to psychometrics being applied to prospective employees; it feels very dystopian to me. I also know that these measures require more subtle interpretation--and caution--than you're likely to get from anyone in HR, especially when we are talking about making inferences about individuals rather than groups of individuals.