Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:45:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2076 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > 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.
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.
> 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!
Now I think perhaps you _are_ misunderstanding my intent. My definition wasn't
designed to provide the eternal wiggle-room that you seem to suggest. Instead,
I hoped to articulate that useful decisiveness necessarily entails an adaptive
response to changing circumstances. Contrast that with Dubya's quixotic but
much-lauded "decisiveness" that The Faithful praise for its unbending,
unchanging constancy regardless of the circumstances of reality.
While I'm at it, the definition that I proposed is kind of the opposite of
"corporate decisiveness" as I've experienced it. IME, "corporate decisiveness"
basically translates to "we'll never make a final determination for which we
might someday have to admit fault or accountability, but in the meantime let's
pretend that a decision has been made so that we can end this meeting."
Useful (positive) decisiveness to me does not imply absolutism or finality, but
rather an ability to react appropriately to changing conditions.
> 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.
But that list is a perfect example of exactly why the test is pointless.
I should reveal at this point that Dave K and I discussed this test a few years
ago. I certainly would expect anyone to bother seeking out that thread, but
here's the crux of my point in that discussion:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17786
> > 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?
The first question to ask is why bother with a test, when you feel that are able
to make these determinations about yourself without reading the final summary?
And the second question is, if you recognize that the final description is often
inaccurate why do you still value the test? The final description is, after
all, simply a clarification of the soundbyte personality "types" as abbreviated
by the rest of the test.
> > 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.
> 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.
I'm lost--how would this be "not very accurate?" It seems to demonstrate
exactly what I'm arguing: that the test is so non-specific that (nearly) any
result can be applied to oneself
To this end, I urge to read about the Forer study:
http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html
in which it was shown fairly conclusively that people tend to respond exactly as
I've described; they tend to interpret any generally applicable result as if it
applied specifically to themselves.
> 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.
That's not a downside--it's a methodological thoroughness that this test lacks.
Additionally, the binary pairings are arbitrary and contestable: why is
"Judgmental" listed opposite "Perceptive?" These two traits are not mutually
exclusive, nor are are they meaningfully in opposition. The test might as
readily ask:
Which describes your self-perception more accurately:
A. Wimbledon
B. Thursday
No justification is given for the pairing, and we have no reason to conclude
that the pairing is valid or sensible.
> > 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".
That's not sufficient, I'm afraid. Since the test is used as a tool of
evaluation and selection in both professional and government employment, it
*must* be held to a higher standard than "pretty right." If the test, which by
its makers' assertion is a tested scientific instrument, cannot be shown to be
reliably accurate, then it should be banned in this capacity. People are
welcome to use it for kicks, but if my promotion basically depends on some
knucklehead with a copy of the I Ching, then I call foul.
> > 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.
Possibly, but this test has not been shown as an accurate indicator of
personality vis a vis extrovert vs. introvert, so it should not be used as a
test for hiring/promotion. (By the way, I don't care for the variant
"extravert" spelling, but I'll use it when referring directly to the test's
vocabulary, where "extravert" is the preference. Incidentally, this is an
indication that the test is beholden to Jung's work (which the designers
acknowledge), though his work is largely suppositional and has been widely
discredited).
> 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.
That's my whole point! The test hasn't been shown to be a reliable indicator of
personality except through overly simplistic thumbnail descriptors, and that's
not good enough. Whether or not Mr. Tester thinks Applicant X is an Extravert,
Mr. Tester is probably not qualified to make that determinations. Mr. Tester
may be *empowered* to make them, but this test is _used as_ but *is not* a
substitute for deep (and potentially useful) personality assessment. Here is
the extent of the statement that Mr. Tester can make after the test:
"Based on Applicant X's answers, Applicant X matches this test's definition of
Extravert, though this definition may not match the real-world definition of
extrovert, and the test has never been shown to correspond reliably to reality."
This disclaimer may seem burdensome, but it is essential, given the subjective
and unproven nature of the test.
> > 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.
Come again? You are in essence saying that you must strip out or candy-coat all
harsh labels of evaluation, or else the test will be perceived as invalid.
That's the same as saying "you must strip out the negative responses because
they don't show that the test works." The very act of making this deliberate
omission voids the test as a credible tool of evaluation.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Ah, now there's where I'm concerned-- you added an extra qualifier to "decisive". Useful vs. Non-Useful (Dubya-esque). Each is still decisive, no? What's the 'decisive' element, minus the 'usefulness' qualification? (...) Hm. I guess that's (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Ha! If anything I would be implying the opposite! :) I'm trying my best not to place a judgement on being "decisive", though :) (...) Heh, yeah, that's how the corporate & political worlds love to define it. All the good, none of the bad. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
