Two takeaways, for myself: Number One - if this is correct, it doesn't seem to have any purpose, and self-identifying with the category is probably going to be more harmful than helpful. And then...
Two takeaways, for myself:
Revelle said he is confident these types exist, but he’s not sure what to take away from that observation. “Myers-Briggs has done so well, because people like to say, 'Oh, I’m a this,’ ” Revelle added. “That is a complete mistake.”
It’s the same with someone’s identity. “What’s the actual utility of these?” he said. “I don’t think we’ve really addressed that.”
Number One - if this is correct, it doesn't seem to have any purpose, and self-identifying with the category is probably going to be more harmful than helpful.
And then the big bad Number Two: Is this reproducible? (I know it's early days, but it needs to be asked.)
On the first attempt, Amaral said he got it completely wrong.
The accuracy of this comes out of a huge corpus of data, and some heavy math, like the five-dimensional plotting. It's hard, and mistakes are easy.
Psychology in in a bad way with the Reproducibility Crisis. Less than 1/3 of psychological studies, that cover things like the effectiveness of CBT, and other frontline psychological techniques, can't be reproduced.
That's not to say it's wrong... But it does say most psychologists don't know how to design a good study, or do good analysis.
This is a controversial topic, so more eyes on the data, the better.
What's completely uncontroversial in the psychological field though, is how terrible today's personality tests are. The academic questions are whether they have any use at all or not. Anecdotally,...
What's completely uncontroversial in the psychological field though, is how terrible today's personality tests are. The academic questions are whether they have any use at all or not.
Anecdotally, the psychologists and psychiatrists I know say that people's level of personal insight is bad and getting worse year on year. When you don't know yourself well enough to answer questions in personality tests reasonably objectively, even though you're trying to be honest, the results are junk.
Why do we need personality tests for ourselves? Don't we know ourselves well enough to know that a word or two or four won't ever summarize us well enough to be of use?
Don't we acknowledge that others are as complex as ourselves too, so they can't be lumped into four or six or 24 groups themselves?
This seems like symptoms of a failure of introspection, self-insight and self-reflection.
I think the main argument for the existence of them, is that everyone can agree that people have a personality, and understanding how to interact with people, especially in the professional...
Why do we need personality tests for ourselves?
I think the main argument for the existence of them, is that everyone can agree that people have a personality, and understanding how to interact with people, especially in the professional context (coworkers, team members, etc.) is useful to know.
As a person develops more skills and experience, however, there's natural drift. The drift towards "role-models" with age and away from "self-centered" are good examples of how this naturally plays out for most people. Unfortunately, I don't think this very simplistic model will give much insight in how to interact with people, however, so it has limited use.
I think you're right about the argument for the existence of them. It just shows how pointless and useless they are. In my experience, in professional settings social interaction breaks down when...
I think you're right about the argument for the existence of them. It just shows how pointless and useless they are.
In my experience, in professional settings social interaction breaks down when folks stop treating each other as people rather than treating someone a specific way as an ISTP "crafter" or ISFJ "nurturer" instead of asking people what they think and want and working with social cues and courtesy.
It's precisely where people would want to use a personality test to influence their behavior that they absolutely shouldn't, but rely on social skills and communication instead.
While I think this should be the gold standard, understanding the framework in which people are taking in information, or weighing information against, I believe is extremely important. In the...
instead of asking people what they think and want and working with social cues and courtesy.
While I think this should be the gold standard, understanding the framework in which people are taking in information, or weighing information against, I believe is extremely important.
In the same way that your CEO probably doesn't need to know about how you are having trouble interacting with a fellow coworker, the context of information you provide should differ depending on how the person is primed to take in information.
For example, if I know that someone fundamentally thinks a lot about fairness across the organization, I might frame an idea of leadership being more transparent as a method of enforcing fairness. However, if another person values education and personal growth, I might frame transparency as a way for leaders to teach their employees and highlight both the positive and negative results of choices they've made.
use a personality test to influence their behavior
The problem here is that you're thinking about it as a means to influence, and not a means to supplement communication. Sure, it might be abused by some, but the goal is to make communication more effective.
Communication is all about influence. Even your own example is you tailoring your wording to produce the desired result. I think the problem is treating the categories as inflexible boxes, rather...
The problem here is that you're thinking about it as a means to influence, and not a means to supplement communication. Sure, it might be abused by some, but the goal is to make communication more effective.
Communication is all about influence. Even your own example is you tailoring your wording to produce the desired result.
I think the problem is treating the categories as inflexible boxes, rather than starting points.
Your points in this thread remind me of the partner of a friend of mine. This friend and I met back in younger days, when we each used to go out dancing at nightclubs. We became "party buddies",...
social interaction breaks down when folks stop treating each other as people rather than treating someone a specific way as an ISTP "crafter" or ISFJ "nurturer"
Your points in this thread remind me of the partner of a friend of mine. This friend and I met back in younger days, when we each used to go out dancing at nightclubs. We became "party buddies", for want of a better term, due to our shared love of clubbing and partying (drug-free, I'd like to add).
This friend's partner is a stay-at-home anti-social hermit. I've visited their house: all the curtains are always closed, and the house is always in darkness. The partner sits at home watching TV or doing computer stuff. He's actively anti-social to the point where he continually questions his partner's desire to go out: "Why do you even need to go out? Sit home with me." (There are lots of problems in that very unhealthy relationship...) He refuses to go out if he doesn't have to. Hates socialising. And so on. He found out a long time ago that he's a "INTJ" in the Myers-Briggs scheme, which means he's a loner and anti-social, and he has embraced that with a vengeance.
The punchline? Me, who loved to go out and party, and met this INTJ man's partner on the dancefloor...? I'm also supposedly an "INTJ".
He has allowed this label to define his life. He has become his stereotype. Meanwhile, I don't care. I'm an individual, not a stereotype.
It's significant that these personality types change as people age, rather than being some kind of platonic constant as most personality typing asserts.
It's significant that these personality types change as people age, rather than being some kind of platonic constant as most personality typing asserts.
More fundamental, I think, is the human tendency to classify oneself, to stake out an identity position, and then use this anchoring to maneuver among life and social contacts. This seems to be...
More fundamental, I think, is the human tendency to classify oneself, to stake out an identity position, and then use this anchoring to maneuver among life and social contacts. This seems to be exactly the real-world utility of astrology as well as Myers-Briggs. It becomes a parlor game. Or if you prefer, a party game.
There's nothing wrong with games, and it's not surprising that we today prefer them wrapped in something that seems scientifically validated. But psychologists' attempts to classify and parse personalities seem about as futile as stockpickers' attempts to classify and quantify market risk.
Two takeaways, for myself:
Number One - if this is correct, it doesn't seem to have any purpose, and self-identifying with the category is probably going to be more harmful than helpful.
And then the big bad Number Two: Is this reproducible? (I know it's early days, but it needs to be asked.)
The accuracy of this comes out of a huge corpus of data, and some heavy math, like the five-dimensional plotting. It's hard, and mistakes are easy.
Psychology in in a bad way with the Reproducibility Crisis. Less than 1/3 of psychological studies, that cover things like the effectiveness of CBT, and other frontline psychological techniques, can't be reproduced.
That's not to say it's wrong... But it does say most psychologists don't know how to design a good study, or do good analysis.
This is a controversial topic, so more eyes on the data, the better.
What's completely uncontroversial in the psychological field though, is how terrible today's personality tests are. The academic questions are whether they have any use at all or not.
Anecdotally, the psychologists and psychiatrists I know say that people's level of personal insight is bad and getting worse year on year. When you don't know yourself well enough to answer questions in personality tests reasonably objectively, even though you're trying to be honest, the results are junk.
Why do we need personality tests for ourselves? Don't we know ourselves well enough to know that a word or two or four won't ever summarize us well enough to be of use?
Don't we acknowledge that others are as complex as ourselves too, so they can't be lumped into four or six or 24 groups themselves?
This seems like symptoms of a failure of introspection, self-insight and self-reflection.
I think the main argument for the existence of them, is that everyone can agree that people have a personality, and understanding how to interact with people, especially in the professional context (coworkers, team members, etc.) is useful to know.
As a person develops more skills and experience, however, there's natural drift. The drift towards "role-models" with age and away from "self-centered" are good examples of how this naturally plays out for most people. Unfortunately, I don't think this very simplistic model will give much insight in how to interact with people, however, so it has limited use.
I think you're right about the argument for the existence of them. It just shows how pointless and useless they are.
In my experience, in professional settings social interaction breaks down when folks stop treating each other as people rather than treating someone a specific way as an ISTP "crafter" or ISFJ "nurturer" instead of asking people what they think and want and working with social cues and courtesy.
It's precisely where people would want to use a personality test to influence their behavior that they absolutely shouldn't, but rely on social skills and communication instead.
While I think this should be the gold standard, understanding the framework in which people are taking in information, or weighing information against, I believe is extremely important.
In the same way that your CEO probably doesn't need to know about how you are having trouble interacting with a fellow coworker, the context of information you provide should differ depending on how the person is primed to take in information.
For example, if I know that someone fundamentally thinks a lot about fairness across the organization, I might frame an idea of leadership being more transparent as a method of enforcing fairness. However, if another person values education and personal growth, I might frame transparency as a way for leaders to teach their employees and highlight both the positive and negative results of choices they've made.
The problem here is that you're thinking about it as a means to influence, and not a means to supplement communication. Sure, it might be abused by some, but the goal is to make communication more effective.
Communication is all about influence. Even your own example is you tailoring your wording to produce the desired result.
I think the problem is treating the categories as inflexible boxes, rather than starting points.
Your points in this thread remind me of the partner of a friend of mine. This friend and I met back in younger days, when we each used to go out dancing at nightclubs. We became "party buddies", for want of a better term, due to our shared love of clubbing and partying (drug-free, I'd like to add).
This friend's partner is a stay-at-home anti-social hermit. I've visited their house: all the curtains are always closed, and the house is always in darkness. The partner sits at home watching TV or doing computer stuff. He's actively anti-social to the point where he continually questions his partner's desire to go out: "Why do you even need to go out? Sit home with me." (There are lots of problems in that very unhealthy relationship...) He refuses to go out if he doesn't have to. Hates socialising. And so on. He found out a long time ago that he's a "INTJ" in the Myers-Briggs scheme, which means he's a loner and anti-social, and he has embraced that with a vengeance.
The punchline? Me, who loved to go out and party, and met this INTJ man's partner on the dancefloor...? I'm also supposedly an "INTJ".
He has allowed this label to define his life. He has become his stereotype. Meanwhile, I don't care. I'm an individual, not a stereotype.
It's significant that these personality types change as people age, rather than being some kind of platonic constant as most personality typing asserts.
More fundamental, I think, is the human tendency to classify oneself, to stake out an identity position, and then use this anchoring to maneuver among life and social contacts. This seems to be exactly the real-world utility of astrology as well as Myers-Briggs. It becomes a parlor game. Or if you prefer, a party game.
There's nothing wrong with games, and it's not surprising that we today prefer them wrapped in something that seems scientifically validated. But psychologists' attempts to classify and parse personalities seem about as futile as stockpickers' attempts to classify and quantify market risk.