Ship of Fools: Personality Tests: Harmful Bullshit or Bullshit which is Harmful?

Thread: Personality Tests: Harmful Bullshit or Bullshit which is Harmful? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020236

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Criticism of personality tests is nothing new. There seems to be little validity to their accuracy and almost none to whether a person will be a good/beneficial employee. Yet they are supposedly a big thing in business.
The Myers-Briggs one is mentioned on SOF quite a bit, hopefully facetiously, so I thought I'd ask why they.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My son is an airline pilot and, along with the technical gubbins, a large amount of time was devoted to personality tests in the selection process.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I get irritated by the requirement to ask students about Visual, Audio or Kinaesthetic learning styles which has been thoroughly debunked. The only usefulness I can see is that it tells teachers not to expect results from their preferred chalk and talk teaching.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Setting aside the obvious bullshit ones I think the better ones can be of some value, but only when used as one tool among many. And on the understanding that the results are not the whole story about someone/yourself.

Using "Oh, I'm an INJP" or whatever as justification for your life is bollocks. Using it to realise that you may be more suited to Role A over Role B in a particular context may have value.

ATEOTD I guess they can act as aids to self-reflection and understanding when used well, particularly for those who wouldn't normally reflect at all. But you can't build a house with just a hammer.

[ 09. July 2017, 12:54: Message edited by: Snags ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think that popular psychology and received wisdom tend towards informal evaluative models. Certain personality traits are good; others are bad. So there's a lot of informal personality categories and tests going on in people's heads anyway.
So I think the benefit of Myers-Briggs-type tests can be that they try hard and mostly successfully to be non-evaluative and non-judgemental: and so they can be a way to clear away the prejudices of received wisdom. It's a way of saying these things aren't something wrong with you or other people; they're just different. And putting a name on just different makes it easier to grasp.
Of course once they've done that job they then need becoming imprisoning frameworks in their own right as described in the article. And then they need to be cleared away in their own right.

[ 09. July 2017, 13:12: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I took the Myers-Briggs several years ago. It found I was hardly judgmental at all. I clung to that for a long time.

Working at myself with the help of someone who was good at what he does revealed I am highly judgmental. I judged the living hell out of people who don't make the world be the way I know it needs to be for it (me) to be OK. It is an important exercise on my part to catch that judgmental me and stop it.

Would knowing that Myers-Briggs is hooey ridden have helped me see myself more clearly sooner rather than later? Probably not.

My experience is that I tell myself about character traits I have because I want to have them, rather than because I do have them. So, most quick, written tests are going to miss that divide.

Some tests seem to be better than others. But I am no expert.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Myers-Briggs one is mentioned on SOF quite a bit, hopefully facetiously, so I thought I'd ask why they.

Probably because of the much-higher-than-usual number of INTJs on here [Two face]

¹

=

¹I recall that being the finding of a poll here by JimT many years ago...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

This can't be done without quoting Ken.

quote:

Can the last Myers-Briggs witchdoctor be choked to death by being stuffed every book in the world that takes fucking Fowler's fucking stages of fucking faith fucking seriously and all of them burned on a funeral pyre made up of Gardener's Learning Styles?

And all the rest of the fluffy-bunny pseudo-scientific pop-psychology mendacious controlling bollocks that has been infesting the church like a plague for the past too many decades.

And we can get rid of the moronic nonsense about "Generation XYZ" while we're at it.

And if there is anything left of Freudianism we can lose that as well (surely there can't be, is anyone stupid or ignorant enough to take his psychology seriously these days?)

And as for the poncy post-modernists - shoot the in the kneecaps with an AK47 and then see whether they really think the narratives of the modern era are unpersuasive.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

I think misuse of "tests" like the Myers-Briggs (which as I recall is termed an inventory, not a test) is part of the problem. Using the M-B to predict who will be a good employee or to say "that's just how I am" is a misuse of it. It's not intended to predict anything or justify anything. It's intended as a way of understanding ourselves and others.

My wife and I did the M-B as part of our pre-marital counseling, not to assess compatibility or predict anything, but as a way of understanding how we each tend to process information and prefer to make decisions, especially when our approaches are different. Over the years, we have found that helpful.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's intended as a way of understanding ourselves and others.

There is serious doubt that it even accomplishes this. I've never been directly subjected to any of this in an employment situation. And I've never taken the "real" test. I thought I had, but the official test wants to be paid.* The tests based on the test that I've taken are far too binary. This is, BTW, a criticism of the official one as well.
I also find it odd that so much faith is placed in a test devised following principles whose originator was skeptical of.

*Which I find suspect in that one can pay to take it in a non-professional manner and one can buy the right to use the test with no standard other than a funds transfer.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Myers-Briggs one is mentioned on SOF quite a bit, hopefully facetiously, so I thought I'd ask why they.
Probably because of the much-higher-than-usual number of INTJs on here ¹

=

¹I recall that being the finding of a poll here by JimT many years ago...

INTJ here!

The article is wrong when it says you are either 100% introvert or extrovert – the actual scoring of MBTI gives percentages, acknowledging that all of us are a mixture.

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

The priest doing the pre-nup for my husband and I used the Myers Briggs as a starting point and a tool for looking at difference more objectively. At that time we’d already been together for 27 years, but we found the framework very helpful. I have used it ever since for any pre-nup I do -- and couples I’ve worked with also seem to find it helpful. It is harmful if we see it as a definition of or an excuse for behavior, but a good tool for seeing things less personally when there is a difference.

I’ve also worked in human resource recruitment, and find such tools fairly useless in that setting, especially if individuals use the results as an excuse for poor inter-personal behavior in that setting.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think the problem is that so many of these are misused. So MB doesn't work if you assume it puts you in one of 16 categories, and that is it. And that you are the same as all others with the same code.

It is much more that this indicates how much you reflect certain features (and, as others have said, it is not a single letter, it is a percentage), and also, how you might relate to others. If you use it like this, it can be productive, knowing that others see things in a radically different way than you. It can also help to see whether the team as a whole has a balance of perceptions.

I think they are useful, but not as definitive indicators, just as ways of seeing differences, and how they work together.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

The only axis that ever meant anything to me was the intro/extroversion one. The others - nah. Don't get 'em.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The article is wrong when it says you are either 100% introvert or extrovert – the actual scoring of MBTI gives percentages, acknowledging that all of us are a mixture.

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Most personality traits do show a normal distribution of scores from low to high, with about 15% of people at the low end, about 15% at the high end and the majority of people in the middle ranges. But in order for the MBTI to be scored, a cut-off line is used at the middle of each scale and all those scoring below the line are classified as a low type and those scoring above the line are given the opposite type.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The only axis that ever meant anything to me was the intro/extroversion one. The others - nah. Don't get 'em.

Isabel Myers considered the which side of that line more important than how much. Which explains why the results tend to emphasize this. However, most people tested cluster in the middle, making her presupposition misleading at best.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Myers-Briggs (self taught Jungian mother and daughter) has as much scientific validity as the Maslowian Hierarchy of Needs ...

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Disclosure: I consulted in health policy and have a lot of medical-legal and governance experience about things like statistically assessing people for risks for expensive health procedures. Had seen a large number of reviews and done 30+ interjurisdictional reviews as well

The Myers Briggs is a categorical classification of people. Dimensional assessment on a continuum is entirely different. To understand properly what tests like the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) or PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory) mean, you need to know statistics like standard deviation, variance, standard error of measurement, various forms of validity, reliability, sampling. And you can't access such tests if you're not properly knowledgable as there are qualifications for purchase and nondisclosure rules with their licensing.

If you imagine the USA joining two world wars late and wanting some way of screening and classifying people. They gave rafts of questions to large groups and found that clusters of questions differentiated groups of people about whom much was already known. They then could use the questions to assess new groups. It's called "empirical keying".

The MBTI isn't in the same category. It's something to highlight some ideas to consider. The "learning styles" ideas, like "emotional intelligence", though beloved of certain groups, lack data and ecological validity (they don't reflect anything substantive in the real world).

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The only axis that ever meant anything to me was the intro/extroversion one. The others - nah. Don't get 'em.
Isabel Myers considered the which side of that line more important than how much. Which explains why the results tend to emphasize this. However, most people tested cluster in the middle, making her presupposition misleading at best.

absolutely true - however, and I'm as inclined to view it as voodoo as the next person, it *is* interesting when you're not most people. They use it a lot at work (I do a lot of human behavioural work), and I'm off the scale on Intuition and Feeling.

which, apparently, is unusual for a man. I've doe it enough times to know that I'm INFP, but the n and p are oscillating somewhere around the middle and the I and F are somewhere on the fringes of the grid.

does it mean anything? I'd like to say not, because I think that we're all individuals. At the same time, has it helped me, helped me relate to other people, and helped other people relate better to me? In all honesty, probably.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

bottom line, for me, MB is at worst an interesting party trick and at best quite useful (provided you take it with a pinch of salt and don't hang your hat on it).

Having said that, I'm perhaps working in a very unusual niche where that is true - somewhere in the vague and cloudy triangle of management consultancy, marketing and advertising.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The MBTI isn't in the same category. It's something to highlight some ideas to consider. The "learning styles" ideas, like "emotional intelligence", though beloved of certain groups, lack data and ecological validity (they don't reflect anything substantive in the real world).

yes, I could just have written that!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
- however, and I'm as inclined to view it as voodoo as the next person, it *is* interesting when you're not most people.

I'm a fair distance from being confused as being most people. Which, ISTM, fuels my skepticism. I think the average person would find a chord struck close enough. But when the note is often in dischord, one is more likely to question.

quote:

does it mean anything? I'd like to say not, because I think that we're all individuals.

Everyone is an individual. But individuality, like most things, is a spectrum; not a yes/no thing.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
does it mean anything? I'd like to say not, because I think that we're all individuals. Everyone is an individual. But individuality, like most things, is a spectrum; not a yes/no thing.

There's a Monty Python sketch where someone addresses a crowd saying, "We're all individuals" and a lone voice comes back, "I'm not."

Pure Python.

Huia

[ 09. July 2017, 20:27: Message edited by: Huia ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Not quite, but close.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
... To understand properly what tests like the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) or PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory) mean, you need to know statistics like standard deviation, variance, standard error of measurement, various forms of validity, reliability, sampling. ...

Anything that describes itself in those terms immediately arouses my suspicion.

For there to be any value in these things, whether Myers Briggs, Belben, Enneagram, 16PF or whatever, the two most fundamental things are not to take them too seriously and not to rely on them to excuse you from making your own assessments of what you think your own or anyone else's strengths and weaknesses are.

So OK as an entertaining way of helping work groups see that their colleagues may engage with the world in surprisingly different ways from themselves. But lethal and iniquitous as a tool to use in recruitment.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Not quite, but close.

Shhh

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

No the whole point of those measures is to give people understandings about the lack of accuracy of the results. For me, I am so close to the middle on one scale with MBTI that I regularly switch.

My big problem is that they tell us far more about who people think they are than who they are perceived to be by others. You need both perspectives to get a rounded picture of who a person is.

Jengie

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The article is wrong when it says you are either 100% introvert or extrovert – the actual scoring of MBTI gives percentages, acknowledging that all of us are a mixture.

I took the MBTI which was done by a professional, who explained the results in detail. Each trait has a possible score of 1 to 50. Someone who scores 15 on the introvert scale is much less introverted than someone who scores 45. A score of 10 or less has very little significance.

This was done at a church conference, and there was a table of books for sale. I bought a book about prayer styles appropriate to different profiles. It explained why I could never pray in a special time period set aside for prayer. My natural prayer style is at odd moments during the day. It was very helpful to read this; it meant I could stop thinking something was wrong with me.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I get why corporate culture would like such tests, but why churches?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

So OK as an entertaining way of helping work groups see that their colleagues may engage with the world in surprisingly different ways from themselves. But lethal and iniquitous as a tool to use in recruitment.

.. though not entirely surprising. There's a large amount of cult like thinking among HR, management consultants and such types.

.. and yes, I equally have a lot of issues with these tests, and don't see that the MBTI is necessarily all that much better than quizzes about 'learning style' or 'emotional intelligence', essentially it's a case of self sorting with very little empirical backing in reality (as opposed to the battery of statistics associated with test results themselves). The MTBI is the inverse to a set of Barnum statements

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
My big problem is that they tell us far more about who people think they are than who they are perceived to be by others. You need both perspectives to get a rounded picture of who a person is.

Jengie

Hmm. Have any of you had a inventory of yourself taken by your spouse or partner? Did it match closely your own results? Just curious.

(And Hi, tortuf! Good to see you here. [Yipee]

)

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Of course the current psychological testing everyone is participating is what they label "analytics", which is all statistics.

Measurement theory is about how to measure difficult-to-measure things. Humans have a tendency to name things and then set about measuring things. Do intelligence, depression, obsessiveness, religiousity, nostalgia, resilience, boldness, autism, attention deficit among others, actually exist? Nostalgia was a potentially life threatening condition often seen in soldiers. Attention deficit exists mostly in schools. Etc.

Thus, statistics are one necessary component, but also required is some form of validity (measuring something that is real) and doing so reliably (consistently). It doesn't matter if it makes you uncomfortable. It is done to some degree to all of us everyday. In the other side, hunan judgement is consistently shown to be less accurate, less useful and more error prone. Notwithstanding that one can assess something with wrong methods which doesn't actually represent reality, e,g., eugenics.

The misperception of online quizzes and tests which are easy to fake as psychological tests is a problem. We also have police making assessments of people using wrong methods and assessing wrong things all the time, hence racial profiling, their belief that certain ways of talking indicate guilt, failure to understand the interactions they have influence.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There's a large amount of cult like thinking among HR, management consultants and such types.

Corporate culture, in all but the rarest businesses, governmental departments, etc.; is a mix of hokum, semi-meaningless buzzwords, misapplied theory, self-justification and lies. And that is when intentions are good.
Standards such as MBTI, even if they were valid, cannot accurately predict a good employee.

quote:

The MTBI is the inverse to a set of Barnum statements

A minute born every sucker?

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The misperception of online quizzes and tests which are easy to fake as psychological tests is a problem.

Real psychological tests can be difficult to asses. Removing preconceptions and administering them in a neutral fashion is difficult at the best of times. The choice of what and how is fraught with potential bias.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

The most useful information I get from MB and other tests is how to work with people who are very different from me. (Which is a lot of people when you're an INTJ.) When our team is under pressure, most of my co-workers get cranky but I'm all cool, calm and cheerful. They understand that if I haven't set my hair on fire, it's NOT because I don't care. Conversely, when things are tough, I don't take it personally if they're not their usual cheerful selves.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Has anyone on the Ship ever done the Enneagram? It's something I've thought about doing for a while, just out of curiosity, but never got round to it...

I find the introvert/extrovert scale helpful, especially in family dynamics, but I can never remember the rest of my Myers/Briggs result anyhow.

The other scale that I've actually found useful is askers/guessers.

Guessers only ask something of someone once they've considered it for a while and are sure they're going to say yes (and even if the person does say 'yes', they still worry if the person has said only said yes because they feel obliged). If someone asks something of a guesser, they will expect the other person to have gone through the same process, so if they feel the request is unreasonable they feel pressured and worried, because saying 'no' is difficult.

Askers have none of those worries. If they want something, they'll ask for it. If the person says 'no', no problem. If someone asks something of them, they'll just assess and say yes or no. Askers can't comprehend why guessers don't just say 'no' when they feel put-upon. Saying 'no' to an asker doesn't offend them at all (unlike a guesser).

Maybe it's pop-psychology, but recognising those traits in myself and friends has definitely helped some relationships go a bit more smoothly.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

The MTBI is the inverse to a set of Barnum statements
A minute born every sucker?

This kind of thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#.22Barnum_statements.22

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Has anyone on the Ship ever done the Enneagram? It's something I've thought about doing for a while, just out of curiosity, but never got round to it...

Wife and I did, maybe 25 years ago. We found it pretty spot on for us (I was a pretty strong 9—Peacemaker; she was a 2—Helper). Can't say there's any particular way we've used that info, though, other than to say "that's interesting" or to recall it occasionally.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I get why corporate culture would like such tests, but why churches?

Mixed bag of reasons and mixed bag of motivations depending on the individual church (or possibly individual within a church) but ...

... essentially (most) churches are also organisations. There are jobs to be done, and people needed to do them, albeit often volunteers not paid. So trying to find different tools to help "fit" people to different roles can have an attraction. It will probably also have a semi-pastoral slant too, in terms of wanting to use people 'well' rather than forcing them into wholly inappropriate roles just because they're available.

In my limited experience this kind of stuff generally only crops up for whatever "leadership team" the congregation has, and sometimes on specific courses aimed at helping people discover gifts/talents/places where they could potentially serve when they know the want to do something, but don't know what. It's not like everyone sits in the pews doing MBTI once a year.

Personally it makes me twitchy in a church setting because it can be an indicator that the church is buying into too much corporate-think and not enough church-think. Whilst there is much that the average church can learn from business about Getting Stuff Done Properly, there is also much that the average church should most definitely be Doing Very Differently to business. IMO, obviously.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I get why corporate culture would like such tests, but why churches?

On the one hand it can be an attempt to make things more 'professional' or even get 'the best' of current 'thought' into the church.

OTOH of course a large number of churches and church movements consciously/unconsciously ape business culture - see the old line church growth movements like Willow Creek - which were very much built along the large conglomerate model (it's telling that Jack Welch spoke a couple of times at their conference), through the churches in the 90s/00s which aped Microserf style valley startup culture (bare feet, meeting in coffee shops, surfer necklaces and apple macs), through to the current hipster church era.

I guess a lot of baggage is brought along each time - from faddy personality trends, to the TED talk style of dialogue.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Thus, statistics are one necessary component, but also required is some form of validity (measuring something that is real) and doing so reliably (consistently).

And you think those do not require statistics? Reliability whether through test-retest, ICC, Cronbach's Alpha, Bland and Altman graph or Generalisability theory is highly statistical. Validity is slightly more complex but can involve a number of statistical tests including regression, Kappa and so on.

Sorry, you are in my area of expertise.

Jengie

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Myers Briggs is an audit of preferences. For example, the process does not conclude that you, me or anybody else is an extravert or introvert.
Extraverting and introverting are things we do. The questionnaire identifies, correctly, that I prefer extraversion, but that doesn't mean I am extravert all the time.

The questionnaire is a guide, not a straitjacket. It was no surprise to me, or my wife, or my friends that I came across as strongly preferring extraversion. What was novel was the move from noun to verb.

You can apply similar arguments to sensing/intuiting, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving. Plus all of these words have a specific, technical meaning in MB.

Properly understood, Myers Briggs provides some language to help understand human diversity. Its use for assessing work capability is a misuse. Any personality type can do any job; their personality preferences may be an indicator, no more than that, of aspects of a particular job which they may find more challenging.

Typecasting people into 16 groups is as daft as astrology typecasting us into 12 groups. But MB doesn't do that, though some practitioners may well do.

I didn't disagree with the late ken about anything very much, but I did on this topic. Though I agreed with him entirely about Mickey-mouse misuse, particularly in the job recruitment field, and half-assed practitioners.

[ 10. July 2017, 12:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

You can apply similar arguments to sensing/intuiting, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving.

I'm not sure; they've always felt like near-synonyms to me.

quote:
Plus all of these words have a specific, technical meaning in MB.

Which I've never managed to grasp.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

The MTBI is the inverse to a set of Barnum statements
A minute born every sucker?
This kind of thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#.22Barnum_statements.22

Ah. Then I would say that the MBTI is a perfect example of the purpose of a Barnum statement whilst inverting the structure.

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:

Personally it makes me twitchy in a church setting because it can be an indicator that the church is buying into too much corporate-think and not enough church-think. Whilst there is much that the average church can learn from business about Getting Stuff Done Properly, there is also much that the average church should most definitely be Doing Very Differently to business. IMO, obviously.

Corporate think is bullshit. The best intentioned schemes would be to eliminate bias, but they do not work.
Most of it is snake-oil sold to management. It is worse in a church, IMO, because they are supposed to work for the betterment of the people and that is not what corporations are designed to do.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Myers Briggs is an audit of preferences. For example, the process does not conclude that you, me or anybody else is an extravert or introvert.
Extraverting and introverting are things we do. The questionnaire identifies, correctly, that I prefer extraversion, but that doesn't mean I am extravert all the time.

I follow the line of thinking that Introversion/extroversion lies in where one is "centred" rather than activities. Shy=/=introvert, outgoing=/=extrovert.
The idea of preferences having much to do with compatibility is off. There are too many variables.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The most useful information I get from MB and other tests is how to work with people who are very different from me. (Which is a lot of people when you're an INTJ.) When our team is under pressure, most of my co-workers get cranky but I'm all cool, calm and cheerful. They understand that if I haven't set my hair on fire, it's NOT because I don't care. Conversely, when things are tough, I don't take it personally if they're not their usual cheerful selves.

How does a test do any of this, though? My childhood was a continuous lesson that I do not process things as other people do and embracing it has taken some time. However, I see such tests as detrimental to the process of learning how to deal with others in that I do not see the correlation of results with behaviour that adherents do.

Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :

I did the eeneagram a while back. I came out with equal numbers for 1, 8 and 9; make of that what you will. I suspect I would be any of those personality types dependent on the situation I was in and who else was there with me.
The most important thing is knowing yourself inside and out and the best thing I found for that is Ignatian Spiritual exercises. Other reflective programs are available, but I haven't got round to giving them a go yet.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Has anyone on the Ship ever done the Enneagram? It's something I've thought about doing for a while, just out of curiosity, but never got round to it...

I did it, about the same time as Nick Tamen. My take on it:
- it's less reliable than astrology
- it could be compared to a homeopathic version of personality inventory: one drop of something interesting/effective, diluted in a gallon of bullshit.

[ 10. July 2017, 20:44: Message edited by: Leaf ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

The MBTI looks a lot like a mystified version of the four of the Big Five personality traits. (Stability-Neuroticism is omitted.) To get there you largely need to take out the binary descriptions and also the model for the underlying structure of the traits, and then tinker a little with the definitions. The Big Five traits are usually considered about as reliable as scientific personality assessment gets (maybe not saying much).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

A fitting suggestion to save money on personality testing for career advising for those in academia:

http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Academic-Zodiac/45720

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

I have to confess substantial dismay when, upon applying to a master's program in theology at a well-respected institution in my region, I was informed that I'd need to take the Meyers-Briggs thingie. Having already been subjected to this stupidity twice in previous sorties into higher ed (and receiving quite different results each time over an 8-month period), I did wonder whether the whole enterprise was worth pursuing.

Really, if we're going to set hurdles for people to clamber over, why not make them at least marginally meaningful?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
(and receiving quite different results each time over an 8-month period),

As I've mentioned, I've not taken the official MB, but every such test I have taken I could answer honestly and have different results the same day.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Not quite, but close.

Thanks Dave. I couldn't remember where it was from. I think that, and the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. are amongst their best.

Huia

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Humans have a tendency to name things and then set about measuring things. Do intelligence, depression, obsessiveness, religiousity, nostalgia, resilience, boldness, autism, attention deficit among others, actually exist?... but also required is some form of validity (measuring something that is real) and doing so reliably (consistently).

Reading back up the thread I don't know if we have answers to this point which seems to me important if we're going to discern bullshit.

I don't think there is any validation to the MB tests, or many other personality tests for that matter. How do we know if it means anything and if it measures anything real?

If people say it gives them a useful vocabulary and way of talking about things that they find useful then no objection, but wouldn't it be possible to do that using simpler terminology that didn't run the risk of creating an industry and a population who very likely believe this is all real?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

If people say it gives them a useful vocabulary and way of talking about things that they find useful then no objection, but wouldn't it be possible to do that using simpler terminology that didn't run the risk of creating an industry and a population who very likely believe this is all real?

Excellent point. I think the value of the MB language is that it is non-judgemental about the preferences which flow from personality differences. After about 20 years of being mutually irritated by some of our differences, my wife and I got to a different, more accepting, place about them. We recognised that the differences might actually be seen as a source of strength in our relationship, rather than rubbing edges.

And what helped us has proved a source of riches in lots of pastoral care situations where we've provided support, particularly with folks whose key relationships were under strain.

Could these beneficial effects have been achieved by other means? Oh, I'm sure they could. But they weren't. MB vocabulary proved to be a source for us of fresh and pertinent insight into relationship strains.

Lots of examples spring to mind at this point, but would take too long to explain.

Of course YMMV. And I appreciate the reasons for scepticism. The means by which we obtain insight are often puzzling, because insight itself is puzzling.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

This reminds me of creating engineering metrics. I'll go with repeatability, and also orthogonality - which means the dimensions of your metric need to describe something entirely separate (wrt each other) about the complex thing you wish to decompose - like rbg colour components, the 5 dimensions of (food) taste, or the three dimensions of space.

If you achieve this it tends to mean that every point in your complex space (here, personality!) in map-able to a unique set of co-ordinates in your x-dimensional decomposition. If you can't say this (some points you can't get to at all, other points have more than one 'address') it tends to imply there's something wrong with your choice of coordinates.

Whether this can be investigated in the case of a 4D M-B personality decomposition - I don't know [Big Grin]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If people say it gives them a useful vocabulary and way of talking about things that they find useful then no objection, but wouldn't it be possible to do that using simpler terminology that didn't run the risk of creating an industry and a population who very likely believe this is all real?

But the creation of an industry and a believing population leads to money in some pockets. Perhaps a bit cynical, but only a very tiny bit. Much the same as the astrology columns that used be seen in women's magazines of the old sort, the lower newspapers and the like.

[ 11. July 2017, 07:58: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Whether this can be investigated in the case of a 4D M-B personality decomposition - I don't know

In fact psychology testing often uses exactly the approach you describe, using principal component analysis. There's no reason why this could be done for MB, but I doubt anyone has looked hard enough at it.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But the creation of an industry and a believing population leads to money in some pockets. Perhaps a bit cynical, but only a very tiny bit.

That is exactly what I was getting at. It matches how I feel about alternative medicine. If someone does a nice massage that makes patients feel better, treats their headaches, and relieves them of a proportionate sum then I don't mind that. When the massage gets a Latin name, a steeping in mysticism, faux qualifications and relieves them of substantial sums then I feel squicky.

[ 11. July 2017, 08:22: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
This reminds me of creating engineering metrics. I'll go with repeatability, and also orthogonality - which means the dimensions of your metric need to describe something entirely separate (wrt each other) about the complex thing you wish to decompose - like rbg colour components, the 5 dimensions of (food) taste, or the three dimensions of space.

If you achieve this it tends to mean that every point in your complex space (here, personality!) in map-able to a unique set of co-ordinates in your x-dimensional decomposition. If you can't say this (some points you can't get to at all, other points have more than one 'address') it tends to imply there's something wrong with your choice of coordinates.

Whether this can be investigated in the case of a 4D M-B personality decomposition - I don't know

Sure. But I think we're talking about the quality and usefulness of models here.

All models are a small and imperfect representation of the Real Thing. That applies to all the psychoanalytic models I know. Human thought and human beings are hard to figure. We speculate a lot about ourselves.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If people say it gives them a useful vocabulary and way of talking about things that they find useful then no objection, but wouldn't it be possible to do that using simpler terminology that didn't run the risk of creating an industry and a population who very likely believe this is all real?
But the creation of an industry and a believing population leads to money in some pockets. Perhaps a bit cynical, but only a very tiny bit. Much the same as the astrology columns that used be seen in women's magazines of the old sort, the lower newspapers and the like.

Used to be? I don't know where you've been, but astrology has never been more fashionable.

I casually read my horoscope and do tarot (I don't take it seriously but find it fun) - it's very much a current trend, with a focus on knowing yourself rather than predicting the future. MBTI is similar but more business speak and less pretty. See also the witchy fashion trend.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I get why corporate culture would like such tests, but why churches?

As a ministry team, we found it a helpful way to understand each other and to hgarbass our strengths while forgiving what frustrated us about others.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Personality tests are excellent tools for self-reflection and metacognition.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I get why corporate culture would like such tests, but why churches?
As a ministry team, we found it a helpful way to understand each other and to hgarbass our strengths while forgiving what frustrated us about others.

These tests can also highlight if and how certain personality types are over or underrepresented in the churches, whether among the clergy or the laity. The results can be compared with those of other denominations, or of the population at large.

Researches and church leaders might find the results helpful in understanding clergy-laity dynamics, or analysing the differences that exist between religious groups, or the implications for evangelism or pastoral care if churchgoers and non-churchgoers turn out to have significantly different personality profiles.

[ 11. July 2017, 19:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I get why corporate culture would like such tests, but why churches?
As a ministry team, we found it a helpful way to understand each other and to hgarbass our strengths while forgiving what frustrated us about others.

Should have been doing that anyway, surely? I don't need a four letter pseudo-scientific personality star sign to see how my thinking differs from other people's.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I get why corporate culture would like such tests, but why churches?
As a ministry team, we found it a helpful way to understand each other and to hgarbass our strengths while forgiving what frustrated us about others.
These tests can also highlight if and how certain personality types are over or underrepresented in the churches, whether among the clergy or the laity. The results can be compared with those of other denominations, or of the population at large.

Researches and church leaders might find the results helpful in understanding clergy-laity dynamics, or analysing the differences that exist between religious groups, or the implications for evangelism or pastoral care if churchgoers and non-churchgoers turn out to have significantly different personality profiles.

Only if these personality types actually map to anything in the real world. That's what MBTI practitioners and salesmen have failed to do.

It's just Barnum Effect. That and barking back at you what you put into the questions. It's like that Viz quiz parody: "Do you like or dislike reading books? - Like: You're a bookish sort of person, you love to curl up with a good book! Dislike: You're not a great fan of books. Perhaps you'd rather watch the telly or play sports?"

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Only if these personality types actually map to anything in the real world. That's what MBTI practitioners and salesmen have failed to do.

It's just Barnum Effect.

Do you think Freudian and Jungian psychological understandings are, or were, "just Barnam"? Do the id, ego and superego map onto the real world? Is there such a thing as the unconscious, or subconcious and does it create internal, unresolved, conflicts with conscious awareness, leading to neuroses? Are neuroses real?

Or maybe, just maybe, do we apply slightly different standards, maybe more pragmatic ones, to psychological models? While the sciences are catching up with, and proving or invalidating, the imaginative speculations.

[ 12. July 2017, 12:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I simply do not see the value of a tool that when told "I link to think things through", tells me I'm the sort of person who likes to think things through.

I knew that. If I didn't know that, I couldn't have answered the question.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I simply do not see the value of a tool that when told "I link to think things through", tells me I'm the sort of person who likes to think things through.

I knew that. If I didn't know that, I couldn't have answered the question.

The problem, though, is that many people do not seem to know themselves in his way. (Disclaimers: (A) I'm in the US, where introspection and self-reflection does not seem to be part of the cultural DNA, and (B) Most of my daily interaction is with folks under 25 whose brain functions are still maturing.)

The result of cultural discouragement of introspection plus a lack of maturity (also seen, alas, in many folks over 25) is an across-the-board failure to pose questions to oneself about one's own perceptions, and the extent to which these do or do not square with those of others, or with reality, or . . .

I've worked with any number of students who struggle to come up with topics to write about.
When asked what they're interested in (as a way of finding something to write about), they immediately discount such items as topic possibilities with what amounts to "If I'm interested in it, it can't be important enough to write about," or they respond with, "Well, my mother-friend-partner-coach says I'm interested in . . . "

I've come to the conclusion that a great deal that's wrong with the US right now could be ameliorated over time by educating our young to do a little more introspection.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
"Do you like or dislike reading books? - Like: You're a bookish sort of person, you love to curl up with a good book! Dislike: You're not a great fan of books. Perhaps you'd rather watch the telly or play sports?"

Made my afternoon.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Only if these personality types actually map to anything in the real world. That's what MBTI practitioners and salesmen have failed to do.

It's just Barnum Effect. That and barking back at you what you put into the questions. It's like that Viz quiz parody: "Do you like or dislike reading books? - Like: You're a bookish sort of person, you love to curl up with a good book! Dislike: You're not a great fan of books. Perhaps you'd rather watch the telly or play sports?"

I must say, I'm not familiar with the agendas of those who practice or 'sell' the tests, though I'm sure it would be interesting to look into that.

Of more practical use is the way in which the information gathered might be helpful to an individual or an institution.

Probably some individuals already know themselves very well and don't need to do a test to prove anything. That's fair enough, but the information might be of use to those who work with them.

I imagine that many religious institutions are also somewhat aware of the kinds of people that they attract or repel. But I suppose that institutions benefit from proof in addition to hunches - especially if they're contemplating making changes that will require considerable investment, effort and disruption.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Do you think Freudian and Jungian psychological understandings are, or were, "just Barnam"?

I think some of them were, I think some of them were interesting but not necessarily scientific claims, some of them were proven, some of them disproven - and possibly harmful, and a tiny minority are still in the category of yet to be tested.

Most personality tests have not been subjected to the same amount of thought, testing and discussion as those kinds of psychological models.

A large number of them are - as Karl and I said above - based on packaging Barnam/Forer statements together, often in the selling as well as the testing - Landmark's repackaging of est is the most obvious example of the latter, but there are plenty of others.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I must say, I'm not familiar with the agendas of those who practice or 'sell' the tests, though I'm sure it would be interesting to look into that.

£ $ ¥ ₽ etc. Not that there are no True Believers in there as well.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I'm not against introspection; I'm against the idea that there is some kind of scientific validity to labelling the results of introspection INTJ or whatever and pretending it has any predictive or explanatory value.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

When I was in graduate school many years ago, we were taught that personality traits were tendencies or trends within a person's inner and outer life, on a “more likely than not” basis. One helpful definition of mental illness or problems was “inflexibility”, meaning that the person had difficulty or couldn't behave, think or feel in ways different than his or her accustomed pattern (traits). This was captured within “interpersonal theory”. Rigid adherence to ways of interacting with self and others - “rigidity” - is illness or maladjustment. Such a way of understanding personality makes the MBTI a problem, because its classification means rigidity, which is unhealthy according to this theory, though I see that some of you are doing a more continuum version of MBTI.

We read things by Timothy Leary** and previous stuff by Harry Stack Sullivan. Basically the theory holds that everything people do in interaction with one another and with their own thoughts and feelings is an effort to achieve and maintain self-esteem and to avoid anxiety. Here's Leary's interpersonal circle or “circumplex”. The checklist can be found Here.

When I was in grad school, there was extensive effort to classify individual statements between medical psychotherapy and counsellors to see if the model held for psychiatric patients, within the Vanderbilt Psychotherapy Project (Hans Strupp among others), i.e. did people demonstrate interpersonal and internal thought/emotion rigidity as part of their problems in living and mental health.

** (yes, that guy, who before the drug things wrote the very excellent “The Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality” 1957, though I also think he was on to something with hallucinogen treatment for some mental illness issues; something that was pioneered in psychedelic Saskatchewan starting in 1952)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not against introspection; I'm against the idea that there is some kind of scientific validity to labelling the results of introspection INTJ or whatever and pretending it has any predictive or explanatory value.

I've thought long about this and, it turns out I am against introspection.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not against introspection; I'm against the idea that there is some kind of scientific validity to labelling the results of introspection INTJ or whatever and pretending it has any predictive or explanatory value.

Are you saying that we're all utterly individual and special, and the only certainty is that we exist in categories of one?

I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that. Some of us are very odd in our own unique ways!

[Biased]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
The problem, though, is that many people do not seem to know themselves in his way. (Disclaimers: (A) I'm in the US, where introspection and self-reflection does not seem to be part of the cultural DNA, and (B) Most of my daily interaction is with folks under 25 whose brain functions are still maturing.)

There is a tendency within the US education system to label things. If I compare American graduate students with European ones, I tend to find that both sets of kids can do similar things, but that the Americans will have a list of names and jargon to describe each procedure, whereas the European is more likely to tell you that it works like this.

I see the same thing in elementary schools - comparing local US elementary schools with those in the UK that I'm familiar with, the US schools place more emphasis on learning names and jargon.

Personally, I found going through an MBTI-type exercise useful in ordering my thoughts and helping me to identify which things about me were different from normal people.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The tests based on the test that I've taken are far too binary. This is, BTW, a criticism of the official one as well.

I've taken MBTI quizzes that have produced a score along each of the four axes, and I've taken them where I've gone back and changed the answers to questions that I was on the fence about, and come up with a pretty consistent picture (which at least says that all the tests are the same).

(For reference, I'm off the charts on I and N, fairly significantly T, and pretty close to the middle on P vs J.) I don't think this has any use at all as a recruitment tool. When I hire people, I'm looking for people with the right set of abilities who aren't arseholes.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

So any possible harm in the use of such tests may lie in screening out job / school / program candidates who may well have become assets to whatever they were applying for.

Somehow I think we might dig a little deeper into the question of what all this "screening" is really about, and why as a society we appear to deem it essential, despite boatloads of evidence that many screening mechanisms give us information which is irrelevant, wrong, or misleading.

The place where I teach administers a writing test to incoming freshers to determine whether they need the standard composition course, the developmental version, or should be given a shot at the Honors version. Given the make-up of my comp sections, I'm now so convinced that you cannot test for writing skills except by having students actually write something, I have banished tests and quizzes from my course.

The writing test has placed illiterates in my classes, alongside of students teetering on the brink of publishability. We'd get the exact same results if we simply let students pick sections on the basis of their schedules.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Are you saying that we're all utterly individual and special, and the only certainty is that we exist in categories of one?

I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that. Some of us are very odd in our own unique ways!

Everyone is unique, just not as unique as most think. Especially in groups. People are very predictable in groups. Individually, people are less predictable. Not because they are amazingly unique, but there are too many variables of which the observer might not be aware.
Self-reporting tests have an inherent weakness: People lie. Even when the test results are blind, people lie to make themselves appear better.
Another weakness is that they require self-knowledge to a degree that many do not have.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
When I hire people, I'm looking for people with the right set of abilities who aren't arseholes.

This is the way it should be. However, this requires good judgement and a level of skill rare in management.

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

Somehow I think we might dig a little deeper into the question of what all this "screening" is really about, and why as a society we appear to deem it essential, despite boatloads of evidence that many screening mechanisms give us information which is irrelevant, wrong, or misleading.

In organisations, it gives the semblance of order and reason; a system, something by which to gauge or judge.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not against introspection; I'm against the idea that there is some kind of scientific validity to labelling the results of introspection INTJ or whatever and pretending it has any predictive or explanatory value.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've thought long about this and, it turns out I am against introspection.

That's pretty good.

I agree with Karl, it's the pseudo-science that I react to. I don't like being conned, even if it is in a good cause. The other problem with the pseudo-science is that it's often used to draw in custom and inflate the price.

"Let's talk about your personality type in a common-sense counseling session." is probably worth half as much cash as "Let's use this tool to scientifically classify your personality according to 4 parameters and determine interactions with your partner on a matrix using 4 parameters."

That's pretty much fraud in my book.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Maybe I'm just being Agreeable here but I found this interesting.

I don't think personality tests fence us in, particularly one based on preferences rather than traits. The Human Resource "adaptations" of MBTI for selection purposes run counter to the strong ethical guidelines about use and misuse from the MB Foundation. I agree with all criticisms voiced here about such misuse.

You may also get something out of this. It addresses many of the criticisms in this thread. I have reservations about how well it does that, but some of the debunking of debunkers matches my understanding.

I've also read the arguments that OCEAN is missing a sixth trait dimension, Humility. Personally, I have no problems in accepting that some audit of traits based on Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, may well be of more comprehensive value than a simple audit of preferences. Provided that all such audits are carried out with Humility, having proper regard to the complexity and variation of human personality.

My guess is that HR units in business have latched onto MBTI as a means of facilitating some aspects of their work and are probably not overly concerned about whether what they do is fair. So far as defensible goes, well that will depend on whether they lose out in any subsequent litigation. But that's just normal HR pragmatism.

Invariably, my preferences for E and N always come out that way in tests and very much match the person others see. On T/F and J/P, I normally come out with marginal F and marginal J preferences, but have tested the opposite on a couple of occasions. Those results also cohere with my self-assessment and those of folks who know me. But I don't feel boxed in by any of that. Why should I?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Maybe I'm just being Agreeable here but I found this interesting.

I don't know, this read about as fanboy as one could get. This does not automatically disqualify the content, of course. It also bolsters the MBTI by comparison to the Big Five. And, beyond the considerable ick factor of its derivation from Francis Galton, his characterisation of it's substance is more than a little skewed than I think he might realise.

quote:

I don't think personality tests fence us in, particularly one based on preferences rather than traits.

We naturally fence, so posts and planks and wire will be assembled into them.

quote:

You may also get something out of this. It addresses many of the criticisms in this thread. I have reservations about how well it does that, but some of the debunking of debunkers matches my understanding.

groan homework
Yeah, I'll read it, but seeing it needing CHAPTERS! automatically makes me reluctant.

quote:

My guess is that HR units in business have latched onto MBTI as a means of facilitating some aspects of their work and are probably not overly concerned about whether what they do is fair. So far as defensible goes, well that will depend on whether they lose out in any subsequent litigation.

The appearance of fair is likely why many use it. And, I will guess, a high percentage of HR management have taken the test.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

The place where I teach administers a writing test to incoming freshers to determine whether they need the standard composition course, the developmental version, or should be given a shot at the Honors version. Given the make-up of my comp sections, I'm now so convinced that you cannot test for writing skills except by having students actually write something, I have banished tests and quizzes from my course.

I'm confused - what does the writing test do if it doesn't ask the students to write something?

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

The place where I teach administers a writing test to incoming freshers to determine whether they need the standard composition course, the developmental version, or should be given a shot at the Honors version. Given the make-up of my comp sections, I'm now so convinced that you cannot test for writing skills except by having students actually write something, I have banished tests and quizzes from my course.
I'm confused - what does the writing test do if it doesn't ask the students to write something?

It's a multiple-guess instrument with items like, "The predicate of a sentence is . . . (A) its direct object (B) its main verb (C) its tense (D) its purpose" It also asks students to identify which of several sentences contains some specific error. Useless. Long ago and far away, I learned that students who could not write a coherent sentence can generally score passing grades on tests like these. The English Department has complained loud and long to no avail; it's a money issue. Administering the @#$#! test costs less than paying a few experienced adjunct instructors to read and score writing samples. We used to do this, and the results were generally spot-on.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
It's a multiple-guess instrument with items like, "The predicate of a sentence is . . . (A) its direct object (B) its main verb (C) its tense (D) its purpose"

Oh dear. That's not a writing test. It's an "I've studied formal grammar" test. I'm not surprised that you find it useless.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Ohher

A bit of a fanboy, I guess, but I was more intrigued by the convergence point than the comparative origins of OCEAN and MBTI.

On fencing, maybe I'm just temperamentally different? I resist being labelled or squeezed into somebody else's mold, which doesn't stop me seeking to extract some value wherever it may be found. It's surprising what redeeming value you can find in the imperfect.

HR and the appearance of things? ISTM that HR units have done rather more to legitimise MBTI than lean on any pre-established legitimacy.

Sorry about the 'homework'!

[ 14. July 2017, 07:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Ohher

Erm, that was me. (See?! this is why I hate avatar and name changes, Nothing but chaos and confusion.)

quote:

On fencing, maybe I'm just temperamentally different? I resist being labelled or squeezed into somebody else's mold, which doesn't stop me seeking to extract some value wherever it may be found.

Even for those of us who are quite different, there is a tendency to group others. It is inborn. And we might resist being labelled, but belonging is comforting.

quote:

It's surprising what redeeming value you can find in the imperfect.

Here is the problem. I think we have different level of imperfect in our view of this subject.

quote:

HR and the appearance of things? ISTM that HR units have done rather more to legitimise MBTI than lean on any pre-established legitimacy.

This doesn't contradict what I was attempting to say. Using an exterior standard allows for the perception of objectivity.

quote:

Sorry about the 'homework'!

No worries.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Ohher
Erm, that was me.

Silly me.

BTW you're probably right about standards of imperfection.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
So any possible harm in the use of such tests may lie in screening out job / school / program candidates who may well have become assets to whatever they were applying for.

But I think that has less to do with the tests themselves and more to do with the assumptions we have about the personality types that certain roles require.

I once did an online Myers-Briggs test and came out as IN-something or other. One of the suggested careers for me was in church ministry. But why should a minister of religion be expected to be an introvert rather than an extrovert? Why should an intuitive person be more suitable than a sensing person?

These are stereotypes, and I'd argue that they have serious implications for the ministry. But there have been stereotypes about clergymen since long before personality tests were invented.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Self-reporting tests have an inherent weakness: People lie. Even when the test results are blind, people lie to make themselves appear better.
Another weakness is that they require self-knowledge to a degree that many do not have.

'Better' is a subjective term here. Who's to say that one personality type on the Myers-Briggs spectrum is better than another? It depends on what you're being called to do, surely.

A well-written test shouldn't create an obvious bias, and individuals shouldn't be guided towards one preferred option. For example, a sensing person and an intuitive person will both have very useful human gifts, and the questioning should certainly emphasise that.

The self-knowledge issue is an interesting one. I suppose this is why some employers invite preferred candidates to participate in interactive activities onsite, so they can see how these people do when given challenging tasks to perform.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Self-reporting tests have an inherent weakness: People lie. Even when the test results are blind, people lie to make themselves appear better.
Another weakness is that they require self-knowledge to a degree that many do not have.
'Better' is a subjective term here. Who's to say that one personality type on the Myers-Briggs spectrum is better than another?

To say it's subjective is kind of a truism, however 'better' will be whatever peoples perceptions - filtered through their cultural prejudices, say it is.

[ 14. July 2017, 20:17: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But a well-designed test should make it harder to pick the approved cultural choice in this way. For example, I've read that Americans have a strong cultural approval of extroversion, so a test designed for Americans would perhaps take that impulse into account.

Moreover, I would hope that a test would be used alongside other material in making judgments. So in a job application a test result would be useful alongside interviews, character references, etc. You wouldn't put someone in an important position on the basis of a personality test alone!

A test designed by an researcher to establish the extent of certain personality types
within a given population or social group would similarly be compared with what's already known about those populations. Discrepancies would have to be explored.

As I mentioned above, a lot of work has been done on the personality profiles of various kinds of churchgoers. I find this research quite interesting, actually. The results often seem to confirm what I've experienced, anecdotally, at the kinds of church with which I'm familiar. But that's not to say that these tests can answer every question about differences in personality, and I think serious researchers accept the limitations of these tests.

[ 14. July 2017, 21:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Two problems: one is that a well designed test is difficult to formulate. The nature of bias is that we do not see it.
Two would be that, even if a personality test were perfect, it doesn't mean anything in hiring. We are talking about jobs and organisations, not crèches. I don't mean to sound harsh, working together well isn't found by matching scores on a test. And, seeing the results of that kind of matching, it doesn't bloody work anyway.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Two would be that, even if a personality test were perfect, it doesn't mean anything in hiring.

The Myers Briggs Foundation agrees with you.

quote:
I don't mean to sound harsh, working together well isn't found by matching scores on a test. And, seeing the results of that kind of matching, it doesn't bloody work anyway.

I think that misses the point. A greater appreciation of human diversity may help people to appreciate diverse contributions to teamwork. There is no certainty in that, of course.

Based on a sample of one, the teamwork in our marriage improved as a result of the insight that our different preferences were not some kinds of character defect to be tolerated. That's the virtue of a value free view of aspects of personality variation and it's a lot better than pointing the finger.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A greater appreciation of human diversity may help people to appreciate diverse contributions to teamwork. There is no certainty in that, of course.

I simply see no evidence those tests give any indication that they are good at doing this.

quote:

Based on a sample of one, the teamwork in our marriage improved as a result of the insight that our different preferences were not some kinds of character defect to be tolerated. That's the virtue of a value free view of aspects of personality variation and it's a lot better than pointing the finger.

I refuse to believe that you truly needed a test for this.
ISTM, the desire to work with people creates the path that predisposes some to accept the tests as they appear to offer a path to do so.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I refuse to believe that you truly needed a test for this.

We did. It's not an uncommon blind spot. The B62 you read here postdates the illuminating weekend we had together in the mid 1990s. But it wasn't just the test of course. There were a number of illuminating exercises which still make us chuckle.

My personal favourite involved a discussion over some topic. Groups had been formed firstly of those with a preference for J and those with a preference for P. Then there was a remixing of groups, so that the Js and Ps were mixed rather than separate. The idea was to continue discussing the same topic.

In the group next to the one I was in, a clearly well organised J sat down, opened her note book which contained very neat notes and began. "Shall we compare notes?" A P lady looked at her, puzzled. "Notes? What notes?".

I got a fit of the giggles, as did a number of others. Pretty soon the laughter became open as the story got around. The two folks who started this were helpless with laughter as they realised what they had inadvertently illustrated.

There was a lot of laughter that weekend, mixed in with a good number of 'hmm' moments. It opened our eyes to several blind spots.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Even if a personality test were perfect, it doesn't mean anything in hiring. We are talking about jobs and organisations, not crèches. I don't mean to sound harsh, working together well isn't found by matching scores on a test. And, seeing the results of that kind of matching, it doesn't bloody work anyway.

I said that these tests would presumably be looked at alongside interviews and character references, etc. I also made reference to recruitment assessment days which would involve engaging in challenging activities. Obviously, no one is going to hire a person based purely on results of one of these tests!

I don't mean to be harsh either, o wise one, but it does help if you read what someone has actually written!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Alright. Plain and blunt. I don't think personality tests should be used at all. Full stop. I think they give irrelevant information.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

OTOH, they did give both Myers and Briggs a moment of fame, and then there are the jobs administering the tests, keeping people off the streets. So they have had some utility.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
OTOH, they did give both Myers and Briggs a moment of fame, and then there are the jobs administering the tests, keeping people off the streets. So they have had some utility.

But I think you misunderstand. lilBuddha is quite right to decry any use of MBTI for job selection. But wrong, I think, to deny its usefulness in looking at the way human diversity can impact teamwork.

I've reflected a bit further on recent exchanges. According to the MBTI trainers I know and have met, the questionnaire results are not regarded as definitive, rather they are advisory to the person who completed the questionnaire. That's just one of the reasons why definitive use by HR units is unethical and unfair.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's just one of the reasons why definitive use by HR units is unethical and unfair.

Agree. My view is that if the tests don't work then this introduces random noise into hiring - which isn't fair. If they do work then this introduces selection of personality types into hiring - which isn't fair.

For those claiming that they are a helpful way of assessing diversity I'm missing the evidence of their validity. It's fine to assert that they provide helpful language for dealing with particular conflicts and relationships based on personal experience, but to claim that they are a valid reflection of personality would need some evidence or testing. I don't think any such evidence exists?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

To what degree might these tests unconsciously include a cultural or racist bias? I know this was an accusation made about the old IQ tests.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
OTOH, they did give both Myers and Briggs a moment of fame, and then there are the jobs administering the tests, keeping people off the streets. So they have had some utility.

But I think you misunderstand. lilBuddha is quite right to decry any use of MBTI for job selection. But wrong, I think, to deny its usefulness in looking at the way human diversity can impact teamwork.

I don't see how you can reach that second sentence unless you are happy that the results are in fact measuring diversity in such a way as to give some prediction about teamwork. As mdijon's post implies, there is no real evidence or independent test which permits that conclusion.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This can't be done without quoting Ken.

quote:

Can the last Myers-Briggs witchdoctor be choked to death by being stuffed every book in the world that takes fucking Fowler's fucking stages of fucking faith fucking seriously and all of them burned on a funeral pyre made up of Gardener's Learning Styles?

And all the rest of the fluffy-bunny pseudo-scientific pop-psychology mendacious controlling bollocks that has been infesting the church like a plague for the past too many decades.
[...]

ken was a brilliant, immensely well-informed and insightful poster. And yet, on this issue, his scorn for Myers-Briggs reminds me of an exchange during an episode of Friends, when half of the main characters fall out with the other half over how much money they are expected to spend when they go out:-

quote:
Ross: I just never think of money as an issue.
Rachel: That's 'cause you have it.

Yes, it's not scientific. Of course, it shouldn't be used to decide which job to do, or who to marry, or anything like that. Of course, it's not an excuse.

I didn't know ken personally but I remember how he came across here: as a confident extrovert who thought everyone should live in big cities because it's great when there are lots of people around. I imagine ken looking at Myers Briggs and thinking: "that's ridiculous! I cannot see any value whatsoever in communicating such obvious, simplistic knowledge about people!" To which I would reply, like Rachel, "that's because you have it."

Growing up as a shy introvert, I didn't have a clue about people. Myers-Briggs doesn't provide scientific answers and it doesn't explain everything about people. It did provide basic ideas, which helped me to begin to make sense of some aspects of how people relate and how conflicts can happen. That's close to what mdijon said:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's fine to assert that they provide helpful language for dealing with particular conflicts and relationships based on personal experience, but to claim that they are a valid reflection of personality would need some evidence or testing. I don't think any such evidence exists?

For me, the evidence that matters is my experience. For example, I have seen friends being super-energised after being around people for a long time, while I'm exhausted (the extroversion/introversion divide). I had a personality clash with a textbook, which made more sense when I realised that the author loved details and didn't care about the big picture, while I prefer the opposite (the sensing/intuition divide). (Of course, I still had to study those details - Myers Briggs is not an excuse). A clash with a friend when planning a holiday made sense when I interpreted what was happening as a judging/perceiving clash. I, with a preference for judging, wanted to book every stage of the journey in advance. My friend, a perceiver, wanted to keep everything open. Is that scientific evidence? Of course not! But not everything which is useful is science.

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I took the Myers-Briggs several years ago. It found I was hardly judgmental at all. I clung to that for a long time.

Working at myself with the help of someone who was good at what he does revealed I am highly judgmental. [...]

As I showed above, that's not what Myers-Briggs means by 'judging'. This, I suggest, is the equivalent of attending a Christian communion service and being surprised that no cannibalism occurred.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

FWIW I just looked at MB again and the same thoughts as usual occurred to me with the two middle letters = I prefer whichever is appropriate to the job in hand. As for the final J/P or whatever it is, well I don't like targets, routines, plans and whatnot but that's because I'm a lazy bugger and they're more work. That's why I wouldn't have any notes to compare - I always wonder why people take notes in sermons and things because it's not like there's an exam where they'll ever revise those notes. I assume they've never thought it through. I'd love someone to tell me they actually make use of their sermon notes [Biased]

But that's by the bye; I knew this already, otherwise I wouldn't be able to answer the questions. All it told me was what I told it - I don't like big groups of people, socialising tires me out, and I'm disorganised. You'd get just as much useful introspection and appreciation of diversity if you got people to score themselves on their preference for comedy or drama, whether they like to dress smartly and what time they like to go to bed.

[ 15. July 2017, 12:31: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I'd like to add, BTW, that because MTBI tries to split normal distributions into binary categories, two people could be say INTP by being on the 51st percentile in each category, and the next day be ESFJ by each category shifting a mere two points. Given the normal distribution, and therefore the bunching around the 50th, a lot of people are going to be near enough the middle on one or more of these scales to shift readily.

As I say, the middle two don't even make sense. They both describe approaches that would be good for some tasks and poor for others, and it's not a matter of preference but appropriateness.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I took the Myers-Briggs several years ago. It found I was hardly judgmental at all. I clung to that for a long time.

Eh?

The 'J' on one of the scales stands for "judging", but this is the first time I've ever seen someone equate that with whether or not one is "judgmental".

[ 15. July 2017, 13:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As I say, the middle two don't even make sense. They both describe approaches that would be good for some tasks and poor for others, and it's not a matter of preference but appropriateness.

Another "Eh?" moment, because I fail to see how there's anything in the tests that dictates that one must always behave in the same way no matter the circumstances.

A description of preferences is not a mandate. The statement that I'm left-handed is a description of my general preference, all other things being equal, to perform tasks with my left hand. It is not a claim that my right hand has withered and is unusable.

PS And yes, people described as "left-handed" do vary in the degree to which they have a preference for using their left hand. This is generally not seen as a reason for abandoning the descriptive term altogether, except possibly by you.

[ 15. July 2017, 13:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

But that's my point. My preference is "whatever is most appropriate". There doesn't seem to be a category for that.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But that's my point. My preference is "whatever is most appropriate". There doesn't seem to be a category for that.

Because that's in fact a claim that you have no innate preference.

It's also a claim that appropriateness is objective, which I would at least question. There are situations where 2 people would have different views about what is "appropriate" and behave accordingly.

[ 15. July 2017, 14:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's why I wouldn't have any notes to compare - I always wonder why people take notes in sermons and things because it's not like there's an exam where they'll ever revise those notes. I assume they've never thought it through. I'd love someone to tell me they actually make use of their sermon notes

In your mind taking notes during a sermon is useless so anyone who does take notes hasn't thought it through? That seems a rather ironic suggestion in this thread. You may well predict exactly what the MB would say about you (arguably anyone with decent self-awareness wouldn't be surprised by what they get on the MB); predicting what the MB might say about the preferences of others on things like processing information might not be so obvious to you if you're just going to assume they haven't thought it through.

Some people take notes because the act of taking notes—of writing down and simultaneously reading—reinforces what they're hearing and helps them remember it. (I'm the opposite; I can't listen and take notes at the same time.) My wife does this from time to time. She rarely looks at the notes once the service is over; the purpose was served simply by taking the notes to start with.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But that's my point. My preference is "whatever is most appropriate". There doesn't seem to be a category for that.
Because that's in fact a claim that you have no innate preference.

Or no strong dominant function as opposed to the auxiliary function, which can be reflected in the MB by scoring in the middle of the E-I, S-N, F-T or J-P scales.

[ 15. July 2017, 14:24: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Or no strong dominant function as opposed to the auxiliary function, which can be reflected in the MB by scoring in the middle of the E-I, S-N, F-T or J-P scales.

Sorry, got mixed up and didn't catch it until the edit window closed. Should have been no preference that consistently predominates, not dominant or auxiliary functions.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
For me, the evidence that matters is my experience.

So that's fine as evidence that it can be useful for some people. But that's not evidence that it accurately types personalities.

(By the way, interesting that you are clear about ken's personality without any formal M-B testing. I expect you are right, actually. And how would the M-B typing improve on that?)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

PS And yes, people described as "left-handed" do vary in the degree to which they have a preference for using their left hand. This is generally not seen as a reason for abandoning the descriptive term altogether, except possibly by you.

Well, if you evaluate left-handedness by how the questions are presented in the MBTI, then it merely registers your degree of evil. However, if you evaluate it by how the MBTI scores then you are just evil.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

(By the way, interesting that you are clear about ken's personality without any formal M-B testing. I expect you are right, actually. And how would the M-B typing improve on that?)

clap I N G O and what was his name-O?

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Has anyone on the Ship ever done the Enneagram? It's something I've thought about doing for a while, just out of curiosity, but never got round to it...

Yes. Mr Nen and I had a powerful encounter with the Enneagram last year and have been working with it ever since. It's so much more than simply a personality-typing system, with wisdom teaching and spirituality in it too. I personally found Myers-Briggs of very limited use - yes, that describes me... now what...?

I wouldn't advise trying to get your Enneagram type from a test, though, and even a book is of limited use. The best way is by the narrative tradition - meeting with a group of people and a skilled teacher and unpacking it together. It took me two days of a three day course to discover my type and I'd never have found it from a test or a book.

Mr Nen and I, as individuals and as a couple, find it an excellent tool for self-knowledge and awareness and personal development; it also gives us a language with which to talk about some of those difficult and recurring problems that come up in a relationship.

Nen - Enneagram Bore.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's just one of the reasons why definitive use by HR units is unethical and unfair.
Agree. My view is that if the tests don't work then this introduces random noise into hiring - which isn't fair. If they do work then this introduces selection of personality types into hiring - which isn't fair.

For those claiming that they are a helpful way of assessing diversity I'm missing the evidence of their validity. It's fine to assert that they provide helpful language for dealing with particular conflicts and relationships based on personal experience, but to claim that they are a valid reflection of personality would need some evidence or testing. I don't think any such evidence exists?

I don't think there has been any form of external audit or peer review of the many published case studies. At least, I haven't seen any.

Do any similar reviews exist re Freudian case studies?

Nor do I think there is any physiological evidence (brain chemistry, patterns of brain electrical activity) to support type indicators.

Although things are moving fast re brain physiology and I believe that some connections will be found with psychological models, that's for the future.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Do any similar reviews exist re Freudian case studies?

No, not one. But how many people these days would assert that Freud has anything much worthwhile to say? Yet people still make claims in favour of Myers-Briggs.

[ 15. July 2017, 21:04: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd like to add, BTW, that because MTBI tries to split normal distributions into binary categories, two people could be say INTP by being on the 51st percentile in each category, and the next day be ESFJ by each category shifting a mere two points. Given the normal distribution, and therefore the bunching around the 50th, a lot of people are going to be near enough the middle on one or more of these scales to shift readily.

As I mentioned earlier, my test was given and scored by a professional. He told me that a score of ten or less was virtually meaningless.

Moo

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But how many people these days would assert that Freud has anything much worthwhile to say?

Perhaps the history or medicine and psychiatry isn't studied anymore. So let's do a brief run down....That there is such a thing as motivations, feelings and thoughts which someone might be unaware of but still affects behaviour and health. We call it the unconscious.

That there common themes of human life which play out in our relationships, our health, our feelings,thoughts and goals. So that we are all dealing with issues of fear, anxiety, self worth, anger, sex, love, all the time, and we follow scripts unconsciously.

That humans are caught between life and death all the time, with love and aggression being foundations of life.

And finally, in this incomplete list, that if someone is troubled, it is helpful to talk with them and try to sort out the themes.

We owe quite a bit to Freud actually. Just because the foundations of medicine, psychiatry and psychotherapy are buried, doesn't mean we owe nothing to it. It's like throwing out the old testament because we've advanced with the new. Not recommended.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd like to add, BTW, that because MTBI tries to split normal distributions into binary categories, two people could be say INTP by being on the 51st percentile in each category, and the next day be ESFJ by each category shifting a mere two points. Given the normal distribution, and therefore the bunching around the 50th, a lot of people are going to be near enough the middle on one or more of these scales to shift readily.
As I mentioned earlier, my test was given and scored by a professional. He told me that a score of ten or less was virtually meaningless.

Moo

Ten or less out of what? How's it scored?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nor do I think there is any physiological evidence (brain chemistry, patterns of brain electrical activity) to support type indicators.

I'm not sure whether to believe all of this but this is the sort of thing I was talking about.

It seems at least plausible for the "big 5" personality traits. (Nothing to do with MB).

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
For me, the evidence that matters is my experience.
So that's fine as evidence that it can be useful for some people. But that's not evidence that it accurately types personalities.

That's true! It's not scientific. It helps me to make sense of some personality conflicts; beyond that, I don't need it to accurately type personalities. I don't expect it to do more than provide a few ideas to help me understand how some people see the world differently.

Of course, Myers Briggs advertises itself as a type indicator - it's in the full name (MBTI). But, for me, the value of Myers Briggs isn't mainly about allocating people to types, it's about recognising what is happening when types conflict. (Admittedly, those things overlap: recognising conflict involves believing that someone else has a different type/preference).

What is the value of recognising what is happening when types conflict? In the examples I gave before, such as planning a holiday, thinking about the situation in terms of a personality conflict (using Myers Briggs) helped me to relax a bit. That made it easier to resolve the situation amicably.

People might think, 'I don't need Myers Briggs to tell me about personality clashes'. Fair enough! For me the value of Myers Briggs was - and is - a bit like the stabilisers on a kid's bike. Confident cyclists, like ken, never needed stabilisers and might think it's ridiculous that anyone would need them. But they helped me, as I wobbled nervously through getting to know people and working with them. At times, I still find them helpful (that is where the analogy breaks down.) That's why I wanted to post my reaction to people pouring scorn on Myers Briggs - when I see such comments, I feel a bit like a kid on a bike with stabilisers, being laughed at by the confident (or well co-ordinated) people who didn't need them.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
(By the way, interesting that you are clear about ken's personality without any formal M-B testing. I expect you are right, actually. And how would the M-B typing improve on that?)

Yes, I'm clear about how he came across in his posts, having read quite a few of them (I remember him commenting about how much he liked living in big cities and why, for example).

I don't think that Myers Briggs explains everything about people or that it is necessary to understand something about a person. Would Myers Briggs improve on my understanding of ken? Maybe not; Myers Briggs offers a rough guide to some aspects of human interaction, it's not a comprehensive manual of everything about how people to relate to each other. If, for example, I had gone to an arts festival with him, then it might have prompted me to explain why, when I needed to spend some time on my own, this didn't mean that there was a problem.

[ 16. July 2017, 10:46: Message edited by: Alwyn ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I wasn't sure either, Karl. Scoring the questionnaire will give for any of the pairs of presence a score of X for one and y for the other, and a net score of x-y. From memory, a net score of 10 or less is pretty marginal. Using the handedness analogy, it means you are pretty close to ambidextrous on that pair.

Rather like you I'm pretty well ambidextrous on J and P and it depends on the job. I prefer to leave a wide safety margin when journey planning but hate taking notes! My wife is pretty much my mirror image on those preferences. And we both come out as marginal J preferees.

So we have a deal. I plan journey times, she makes lists. Saves mutual stress. Might we have got there without MB insights? Maybe. But we didn't.

[ 16. July 2017, 11:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nor do I think there is any physiological evidence (brain chemistry, patterns of brain electrical activity) to support type indicators.
I'm not sure whether to believe all of this but this is the sort of thing I was talking about.

It seems at least plausible for the "big 5" personality traits. (Nothing to do with MB).

There is also some evidence of correlation between 4 of the Big Five and MB. But as that article makes clear, correlation is not confirmation. I was told many years ago of the correlation between birth rate and stork population in the Netherlands. I was also told that was a myth!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
If, for example, I had gone to an arts festival with him, then it might have prompted me to explain why, when I needed to spend some time on my own, this didn't mean that there was a problem.

I'm completely accepting of the fact that some people might need prompting to explain that. I would regard it as common sense, but there are plenty of things other people see as common sense that I need to get reminded about.

My problem with MB is not accepting the need for stabilisers per se. My problem is the idea that one needs to purchase a branded piece of engineering incorporating bespoke side-to-side movement parameter estimates, taking into account the number of spokes in the bike and the counterpoint balance of the bicycle frame, as assessed for the cyclist using the propriety Mdijon-Bollocks framework when an L-shaped bit of metal with a wheel and screw would have done fine.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
As I mentioned earlier, my test was given and scored by a professional. He told me that a score of ten or less was virtually meaningless.

Moo
Ten or less out of what? How's it scored?

Here's an example. On the introvert-extrovert scale the possible scores range from 0-50 introvert to 0-50 extrovert. A person who scores 10 or less introvert or extrovert is borderline. I score 43 introvert. This is useful information for me. I knew I was an introvert, but I didn't realize just how different I was from average.

One difference between introverts and extroverts is how they express themselves in conversation. Extroverts tend to say a lot before they get to their main point; introverts state their point succinctly and shut up. An introvert gets frustrated waiting for an extrovert to get to the point, and an extrovert misses the introvert's point because he didn't expect anything so bare-bones. You may have noticed that my posts on the ship are usually quite succinct.

Moo

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

So my MB type is I--- because I have non-significant scores on other axes. So why do tests insist on IXXX where the X is something? Given that all the axes show normal distributions, why aren't more people given types with some of the positions left unfilled? This is one of the problems. I've said before that I think that the I/E exis is the only one that has any validity.

[ 16. July 2017, 12:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[...] My problem is the idea that one needs to purchase a branded piece of engineering incorporating bespoke side-to-side movement parameter estimates, taking into account the number of spokes in the bike and the counterpoint balance of the bicycle frame, as assessed for the cyclist using the propriety Mdijon-Bollocks framework when an L-shaped bit of metal with a wheel and screw would have done fine.

You seem to suggest that Myers Briggs makes something simple into something complicated. My experience is that it does the reverse. Maybe too simple, at times - but a bit of basic knowledge is more useful than nothing.

You seem to be saying that Myers Briggs involves purchasing expensive branded stuff. My experience was nothing like that - I took part in a couple of Myers Briggs workshops led by a youth worker in a church hall - it was simple, homemade in style and either free or inexpensive (I cannot remember which).

As for 'the idea that one needs to purchase' Myers Briggs, I don't have a problem with people learning the same things by any method they like. To follow your analogy, maybe you learned how to fix your bike when you grew up, but I didn't. If I spend a couple of evenings learning how, and it costs me a handful of pounds, why should you care? While some of the criticism of Myers Briggs is fair enough, some of it still feels like people laughing at others who are less socially confident.

[ 16. July 2017, 12:41: Message edited by: Alwyn ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I'm an introvert with some autistic characteristics. No, social confidence doesn't come into it.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So my MB type is I--- because I have non-significant scores on other axes. So why do tests insist on IXXX where the X is something? Given that all the axes show normal distributions, why aren't more people given types with some of the positions left unfilled? This is one of the problems. I've said before that I think that the I/E exis is the only one that has any validity.

The I/E axis is the only one that has validity for you. I am INFX. The first three reflect something genuine; the last is borderline. I agree that this should be made much clearer.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's also the only axis that researchers doing objective evidence-based research can find any validity to.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's also the only axis that researchers doing objective evidence-based research can find any validity to.

It may also be the only axis that actually matters in the hiring process (since it's the personality test - HR connection originally under examination here). Years ago, when I was working in the disabilities field, we discovered that the one major factor in keeping employees with disabilities retained in their jobs came down to things like whether they took a turn with non-disabled employees in bringing the doughnuts or doing the coffee run. Those behaviors turned out to matter at least as much, and possibly more, than their actual job skills in being kept on at their job placements.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I took part in a couple of Myers Briggs workshops led by a youth worker in a church hall - it was simple, homemade in style and either free or inexpensive (I cannot remember which).

But the youth worker will have spent time, effort and money on getting trained in Myers Briggs.

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
If I spend a couple of evenings learning how, and it costs me a handful of pounds, why should you care?

I don't care in the sense that I want to ban it, but I do have an opinion that the claims made for accuracy of personality typing by MB aren't evidenced.

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
While some of the criticism of Myers Briggs is fair enough, some of it still feels like people laughing at others who are less socially confident.

I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent. I don't want to mock those less socially confident, but I do feel that Myers Briggs is making claims that aren't evidenced. Fine that some people find it helpful. I personally believe that any psychology questionnaire downloadable from the internet would be capable of supporting the same helpful discussions. And there's really no evidence that Myers Briggs methodology is able to pull out anything reproducible or validated regarding people's personalities.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
It may also be the only axis that actually matters in the hiring process

I also think it immoral to want to hire extroverts. People should be hired for their ability to do the job, not for perceptions of personality that could be culturally influenced (and therefore a potential source of unconscious bias in hiring) or unalterable.

If its important they get doughnuts at work to get on then tell them to get doughnuts at work.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, there are jobs where the ability to be outgoing and chatty all day and every day is relevant to the work required. An introvert would be the obvious choice, but some people are willing and able to switch between an introvert and an extrovert persona as required.

But having read some of the comments above, something in me wonders if there's a test that reveals the kinds of personality types most likely to hate personality tests. It's a bit of a cheeky thought, but it's also genuinely interesting. To me, at least.

[ 16. July 2017, 14:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes.

But I cannot recall the details. Sometimes individuals have guessed a person's mbti based on their dislike of these tests. They are right about 50% of the time (if it was type at random it should be 1/16). Which is high but not high enough to be fail safe.

Jengie.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's also the only axis that researchers doing objective evidence-based research can find any validity to.

OK, so I do not score in the middle between introversion and extroversion, but very high in both. Ambiversion it is called, sometimes, but I think it more the beginning of understanding that this is a more complex matter than the simple labels make it appear.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes.

But I cannot recall the details. Sometimes individuals have guessed a person's mbti based on their dislike of these tests. They are right about 50% of the time (if it was type at random it should be 1/16). Which is high but not high enough to be fail safe.

Jengie.

Given that the borders of the "types" are fairly mushy, it would be difficult to have a lower guess rate.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, there are jobs where the ability to be outgoing and chatty all day and every day is relevant to the work required.

Then have a chat with the candidates at interview and see how chatty they are. Test the ability to do the thing that you want done, not an unvalidated personality test that you believe is related to the thing you want done.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
It may also be the only axis that actually matters in the hiring process
I also think it immoral to want to hire extroverts. People should be hired for their ability to do the job,

I didn't say how this matters; HR depts. might well select for introversion, hiring people less apt to socialize on the job.

In supported employment, it may matter, however, that one gets along with co-workers. Folks with severe disabilities (i.e. sharply noticeable differences from co-workers in sensory, motor, and/or cognitive functioning), there's often an initial trial period, where co-workers get a say in how the supported employee is working out.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If its important they get doughnuts at work to get on then tell them to get doughnuts at work.

Sadly, one of the "tests" of getting along is the noticing of and adapting to unspoken rules. Who brings the doughnuts or goes out for the coffee is often one of those unspoken norms.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I didn't say how this matters; HR depts. might well select for introversion, hiring people less apt to socialize on the job.

I'm equal opportunities about this. If its immoral to select extroverts for being extroverts its immoral to select introverts for being introverts.

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Sadly, one of the "tests" of getting along is the noticing of and adapting to unspoken rules. Who brings the doughnuts or goes out for the coffee is often one of those unspoken norms.

Sounds like the kind of workplace culture that needs an overhaul to me.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm equal opportunities about this. If its immoral to select extroverts for being extroverts its immoral to select introverts for being introverts

We agree. Assessments of suitability match candidates' KSE (knowledge, skills, experience) against the job description. That's interview board 101. Or at least used to be.

[ 16. July 2017, 20:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0