Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:51:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2055 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> My argument is that the (Myers-Briggs) is inadequate as the tool it is marketed and sold
> to be; namely, it is marketed and sold as a tool of professional and/or career
> planning, and it is not suited to that role.
Patient readers may recall the extended exchange that DaveE and I had back in
November or so regarding the Myers-Briggs Testing Instrument. Suffice it to say
that we were, in the end, of surprisingly like mind; I objected to the test's
use in screening employees and didn't see any value it its use as a personal
evaluator; DaveE was likewise uncomfortable with the test when used to hinder
professional advancement but considered it useful for personal examination.
(DaveE, please correct me if this paraphrase is incorrect!)
Anyway, here's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4010-2005Mar26_2.html
If you can't view the article, the gist is that the test (and others like it) is
widely used in screening applicants for employment and advancement.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Well, it was designed, was it not? And presumably the designers made deliberate choices to include some results and not others, right? QED. (...) Sure, they *may* do that, just as tea leaves *may* tell you who you're going to marry. Let me (...) (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
|
|
|
|
