Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:12:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2071 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > How would you define decisiveness, then? The speed at which you make a
> > decision? I guess I'd say that if you either admit you could be wrong, or
> > actually do change your mind frequently enough, you're less decisive. But
> > that's just the semantics game.
>
> Hmm. Upon reflection, I see that I was inferring a value judgment where
> perhaps you didn't really imply one. It sounded, to me, as if you were
> making "decisiveness" a positive attribute, so that "more decisive" was more
> positive than "less decisive." It seems now that this wasn't necessarily
> what you meant, so I may have been off the mark.
Ha! If anything I would be implying the opposite! :) I'm trying my best not to
place a judgement on being "decisive", though :)
> I guess I'd define decisiveness as the ability to respond quickly,
> effectively, and with flexibility to changing situations.
Heh, yeah, that's how the corporate & political worlds love to define it. All
the good, none of the bad. Personally, I find that definition pretty useless in
practice. "We have to deal with this issue decisively." Well, duh! It's like
saying "we should make a good decision quickly, be firm, yet not be tied down to
that decsion if needed". Well, sure!
I guess my definition was more along the lines of M/B's "Judgement" vs.
"Perceive":
Judgemental / Perceptive
-----------------------
close / open
decide / explore
structure / meander
organize / inquire
firmness / flexibility
control / spontaneity
And you can probably guess where I fall on that line :) Ultimately, I think it's
best to have a mix of both, and be on that 50/50 point. People on either extreme
will likely have more problems.
> > I honestly don't really have any experience *other* than M/B (not to be
> > confused with MB, the evil clone brand), which actually described me pretty
> > well, as well as others I took it with.
>
> The whole problem is that it describes *everyone* well because it uses such
> generalities as to be at least partially applicable to anyone.
Sorta-- certainly there are categories where I'd say "Uh, no. That's not me."
But in general, I don't look at the end descriptions as much as the category
divisions.
Extrovert or Introvert?
Sensing or using iNtuition?
Thinking or Feeling?
Judgemental or Perceptive?
It's very easy for me to figure out which categories I belong in in the above;
the exception being Sensing/iNtuition, which I'm closer to the line on I think.
To read the "final summary" is a lot less useful for me. Some are easy to reject
easily, others are trickier, because they describe *parts* of me well, but not
so much others. Plus the fact that probably nobody's 100% in either direction on
any category. So if you're 35% feeling, 65% thinking, you still acknowledge that
you ARE someone who feels through certain situations, and so won't reject that
as a potential description of yourself.
What they generally lack is the "you do NOT do X" in their overall summaries--
instead they just focus on the things you DO do.
> A useful test would be to give the test to a dozen or so people and then
> randomly distribute the results among them (while asserting that each person
> has actually received his own) to see how "accurate" they perceive those
> results to be. I'd guess that most people would find the test to be
> basically accurate in describing themselves, regardless of whose results they
> were actually seeing.
>
> Alternatively, you could test a dozen people and then let them try to
> identify their results from among the dozen, and see how accurately they can
> match their results to themselves.
The former I doubt would be very accurate, because, as you point out, the
results focus on the positive, and people will try to correllate themselves to
the result they're given, and probably react positively. However, if you gave
each person the OPPOSITE of what their profile should have been, you might see
many more people saying "That's not me!" results. At least, that's my guess.
The 2nd sounds more promising. Because in taking the time to go through each
one, some certainly describe me better than others, not that I'd easily know to
reject a description that was *close* to what I am, wihtout knowing the other
options.
> It's basically the same as a horoscope or numerological reading; the claims
> are so non-specific that any result can be applied ad hoc to any test
> subject.
For many people I'm sure that's true-- because the "normal" person would be
50/50 on each line, and hence would fit into LOTS of (if not all) categories.
Then there are people like me who (I'd guess) are very much moreso biased one
way or the other on certain qualities. And we're much less likely to be stuck
between a few possible descriptions.
What also really need is descriptions for people that are incremental. Say, 5
possibilities for each category. Downside being that then you'd have to write a
whole buttload of descriptions for the 625 resultant personality types.
> > Is there a better metric floating around out there? Or
> > are all personality tests doomed to failure given the nature of the human
> > mind not to fit into nicely pre-determined boxes?
>
> I don't think that all tests are doomed to failure, but to date no test has
> been conclusively demonstrated to correlate accurately and specifically to
> the personality it purports to measure. The designers of the test, and many
> who've taken the test, assert that it's accurate, but that's subjective
> testimony and shouldn't be mistaken for objective evidence.
Oh, I totally agree, but then again, I'd also argue that it's doomed to fail by
that logic because defining personality traits in objective terms is next to
impossible, as would measuring those traits. The best we can hope for (I'd
guess) is something that's "pretty right".
> I don't care if the average person wants to use play with this test as a
> harmless little diversion, since it's no worse (and objectively no more
> effective) than tea-leaf-reading or other forms of divination. However, I do
> object to its use in the workplace as some kind of yardstick to assess the
> individual's management potential, or somesuch. There is no objective
> evidence that the test is an accurate measure of personality; therefore to
> use the test as such a measure is as absurd as consulting a Ouija board
> before hiring/promoting a person.
Hm. I dunno. Depends on the job I guess. Someone in sales really should be an
Extravert, not an Introvert. Most techy jobs you'd probably want someone who was
a Thinker than a Feeler... But the rest? I dunno. Certainly for management I
don't think these classifications make much sense-- you really want someone
who's balanced. Further, for management, you're looking for other qualities,
like realism, personability, responsibility, and intelligence. None of which are
measured by M/B.
> As an aside, I note with interest that the Myers/Briggs test doesn't include
> a result for "dangerous sociopath on the brink of meltdown." Every result is
> generally positive (or at least generally constructive) and therefore
> generally likely to yield a "hey, that's me" response.
Well, that's a given. And probably why the test is so widely-known. Calling a
"Feeler" (instead of a "Thinker") an unthinking-moron is going to get some
hostile responses. Same as if you called "Thinker"'s cold-hearted. You've got to
try and find the good in each quality, or else people will grossly object out of
instinct (especially if they're ?N?J's), and say your test was wildly
inaccurate.
As for being a sociopath, you'd need a much different test for that. Just like
what sort of humor you found funny, or whether you hate your parents or not.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Yikes! If you're suggesting that, based on my definition, I am allied with the corporate world, you have either misread my intent or I have miscommunicated it. Or perhaps I'm again misreading you. (...) Now I think perhaps you _are_ (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Hmm. Upon reflection, I see that I was inferring a value judgment where perhaps you didn't really imply one. It sounded, to me, as if you were making "decisiveness" a positive attribute, so that "more decisive" was more positive than "less (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
