Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:01:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2133 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > 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.
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?
> 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."
Hm. I guess that's generally true, although I'm tempted to add that people love
it when a decision is made, but oftentimes they're hesitant to MAKE that
decision, unless they have the option to blame someone else when it goes wrong.
IE "I made the right decision, based on bad data".
> > 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
>
> 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
Oh? I agree that "close" vs. "open" is an obvious pro/con, but so too would be
"structure" vs. "meander", just in the other direction. If you put a negative
spin on one side, but not the other, you're perfectly right-- who wouldn't opt
for the positive? And generally, again, you're right, people would want BOTH
sides of this list. But my guess is people often will sway one way versus the
other. Not to say that there AREN'T people who are balanced, and not to say that
that percentage may constitute a majority, but in general I do often notice that
certain people ARE on one side or the other.
> > 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?
Why bother as in why bother with me per se? Well, first off, I think I've got a
pretty good handle on myself; and I've taken the test a couple times before, and
it's revealed what I figured was true. Are other people able to make such
determinations? I dunno. Some probably are, some probably aren't. Hence, the
test provides a bit more obfuscated way of determining, trying to (possibly with
difficulty) avoid obvious bias.
And, as for the final result summary, as I said, each really IS applicable to
almost everyone, only because people will read each description positively and
attempt to identify with the positive, hence meaning that you're likely to
accept many of the descriptions as accurate. The DIFFERENCE being that some
*MORE* accruately describe your personality; so while one may be 75% correct for
you, another may be 78% correct for you-- and it's difficult to make that
distinction given their pretty awful wording on their summaries.
> 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.
Because I find the categorizations to be generally applicable to people from my
experience; but not necessarily as much the final descriptions.
> > > 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
Sorry-- I should've said "not very useful in determining the reliability of
Myers/Briggs". Basically, by giving someone a single, random result, and because
that result is generally positive, people WILL try and identify with it, and
probably be just about as satisified as they are with the current test. It's
possible that the "satisfaction with the result" factor would be slightly lower,
but that's highly hard to determine.
However, the 2nd proposition you gave, which was to give everyone the summaries
of all 16 categories, and letting them chose the one that most accurately
represented themselves, would be a better test of Myers/Briggs, because all of a
sudden people can compare for themselves how accurately the description came
out.
> That's not a downside--it's a methodological thoroughness that this test
> lacks.
Well, yeah, but a downside for the authors, basically. Not really to the test.
But I personally would be happy even without ANY of the final descriptions, let
alone 625 of them.
> 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.
You're right, we don't-- at least not hard-and-fast evidence. However, I will
point out that the real comparison that I think is being made is:
"Jump-to-conclusions" vs. "Never decide anything"
People who jump to conclusions (theoretically) do so because they hate feeling
undecided. They generally feel sort of lost without knowing which direction they
should be going in, and as a result, try and come to a decision as quickly as
possible. By contrast, others feel horribly constrained by making decisions and
having rules, and absolutely feel confined when forced to make up their minds.
Mutually exclusive? Eh, sorta. But like I said, you don't have to be on either
side; you could be in the middle. And where you are also depends on the
situation. Some situations you may be more decisive than others.
As for their wording "Judgement" vs. "Perception"? That's pretty lame, I must
admit. I would've put down "Decisive" vs. "Perceptive" or something. Actually,
"Perceptive" just doesn't do it for me either. Not sure what does.
> > 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."
Heh, you jumped the gun :) I'm not implying by any means that this should be
used as a prerequisite for a job, or used at all for absolutely definitive
science. It's interesting, and it's potentially useful for finding trends in
psychology, but beyond that, I find its usefulness rather limited.
> > > 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.
Agreed. And because the test doesn't qualify "partial" introverts/extroverts (or
whatever the spelling) it's pretty limited in that capacity. A 50/50
extrovert/introvert might get rated as in introvert and denied the job, even
though they should've been rated extroverted and gotten the job. And visa/versa
of course.
Plus it doesn't prevent people from "fooling the test". I can remember looking
at the test questions and figuring out exactly how some correllated to the
types. If I were going in for a salesman position, I'd know much better how to
lie on the test and get the job.
> 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.
Well, good enough for what, exactly? I mean, on a case-by-case basis? Surely
not. But generally? Sure, I'm willing to believe it's generally right. Hence,
for noticing trends, like being religious and how it relates to your
personality? I'd be inclined to mildly trust the results. If it agrees with the
theory, great, and if it doesn't, then oh well. But I'm not looking to suggest
any law of psychiatry, here.
> > 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.
Yep! Effectively what your point was before. If I classified the whole
decisive/indecisive (J/P) thing as "Close-minded" vs "Open-minded", well duh! Of
COURSE people are going to choose "open-minded", because it sounds better. If
you put a negative spin on half your options, the test is in effect rigged
towards a certain response.
And likewise, in the final summary, if you called someone "self-centered,
guessing, cold-hearted, and closed-minded" instead of "Introverted, iNtuitive,
Feeling, and Decisive", well guess what? They'd be insulted and would decry your
test as a bunch of bull. (Actually, I'm not sure I'd correllate "introverted"
with "self-centered", but you get the idea).
If you include the negative, you're going to get a lot of bias. Hence, you've
got to try and put as little positive/negative spin as possible, or balance each
side as equally as possible.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) I still don't agree that "structure" and "meander" are reasonable opposites except in some interpretive, poetic sense, and in this regard they forfeit their use as scientific tools of assessment. Looking at the Myers-Briggs test, I can't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
