Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:58:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2306 times
|
| |
|
|
Some of my thoughts on Meyers-Briggs:
I have taken this evaluation twice (though I'm not sure if either time was
the real evaluation and not just a quick evaluation). The first time I came
out INTJ (though very close to the middle). The second time I came out ENFP.
The second time was through a web site which had extensive information on
each type. The second time I read through each type carefully, questioning
why I came out almost opposite. I also took a short workshop.
One interesting anecdote from the workshop: We were supposed to have books
the first day, but they didn't arrive in time, so the leader had to
reorganizre the workshop. They offered refunds to anyone who didn't feel
comfortable with that. After people left, we then shared what our evaluation
was and talked about it. EVERYONE who stayed was an N (Intuitivive). The N/S
scale in some fashion covers the person's adaptability and need of planning.
That seems like a very strong correlation that is useful.
The E/I scale seems also to be very useful. By the description that Es are
folks who get energy from gatherings, I would absolutely say that I am an E,
though not an extremely strong one. So you ask, well, what about the fact
that the first time I came out I instead of E? Well, the first time I took
it, I was attending a UU conference that is very touchy feely and had over
1000 attendees. I always came home from this event refreshed, but I do also
need alone time, so my feeling is that the evaluation reflected my need for
alone time (and in fact, I didn't do the evalation with a group of people,
but instead on my own).
The workshop also explored how the various scales interracted. It really
made sense to me. One thing that came out of this is that ENFPs tend to work
out problems by talking to people. Boy does that describe me to a T. Other
types (if forget which pair of scales governs this) work out problems by
themselves and then present a solution. Sorry if I'm not describing this
very well - it's been a while since I took the workshop. In any case, I have
observed these different styles in the workplace.
The workshop also pointed out that just about everyone does have some
empathy with the other end of each of the four scales, and that people adapt
to situations (i.e. an introvert who is put in a crowd may demonstrate some
extroverted tendencies as a way of dealing with the crowd).
As far as using the evaluation as a tool: ANY modeling tool has limitations.
Our current physics models almost assuredly do not model the entire
universe, though they seem to model what is currently observable very well.
Should we throw out those tools because they aren't perfect? Should we stop
teaching Newtonian physics because it's imperfect? No. When we use a model,
we accept it's limitations, but we also accept the predictions that it does
well with.
So I think the MB can be usefull, and does have use in the work setting,
though where I have seen it most often suggested for use is for different
employees understanding a little bit of why the other guy does X or Y. I
admit that I would hate to see it used as a very important element of
deciding who can and can not be a manager. From my workshop, none of the
discussion said "This is the type that makes good managers." But for a
manager to understand that ENFPs like to talk through problem solving is
important. Way back when I first started as a regular IBM employee, you got
comments from your peers on things you did well, and things you did poorly
(Dave Eaton should remember this also... :-). I got dinged by more than half
the people who submitted peer comments for me on my tendency to talk to
people a lot, thankfully my manager recognized that that was part of how I
work, and not only recognized that it was productive for me individually,
but also that it helped bring the team together. His suggestion was that I
take more care in when I talked with folks. One other thing he commented on
in that respect was that I often came to him or my team leader to talk about
this insolveable problem I was working through (he liked to say that I would
walk into his office and drop a grenade), but he also told me that he had a
lot of confidence that when I did that, that I would solve the problem (I
would strongly suspect he was an E also, there are several things that
suggest it).
So I take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's a far more valuable tool
than a horoscope since it at least is evaluating you based on answers to
questions. It also tries to hide what the question is actually asking,
something psych tests need to do, otherwise people answer the questions
trying to influence the results. Of course you can't eliminate this bias,
which is probably the major reason some people are not well predicted by it.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) So is it respected, or not? The test is indeed used as a predictive tool, so if it does not function in this capacity, then it should be abandoned. But your wife is correct--the tool has no predictive power because its predictions are so (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-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
|
|
|
|
