Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Returning home from my walk yesterday I ended up coughing so hard my head started to pound, and I could literally see stars. I awoke this morning feeling as if a steel band is wound, tight, around my chest.
Between that and anxiousness about the new babies to be (who now have their own weblog — post ultrasound pictures, Dads!) I am falling behind in the schedule to complete the RDF book, which must be finished next week or no bills will be paid this month.
(If I post, yell at me, okay? Must focus. Focus!)
To compound my difficulty in focusing, Loren is writing about a new poem that is proving to be quite interesting, though his site is going down so frequently that one has to read in snatches. Jonathon compounds the problem by writing a post on personality types, tests, and his own listing of traits he feels best describes himself (he being a weird Sensitive Idealist). In particular, the areas he grays out on the listing of traits is just as telling as the areas he leaves in.
Sigh. How is a woman to work?
Returning to the personality tests and Jonathon’s post, what a door opener to discussion in how our perception of Jonathon compliments or contradicts his own. This leads to a discussion of our own test results and discussion of same; thereby allowing each of us to learn more about each other.
That’s the purpose and the power behind personality/psych tests, a favorite subject of mine, as it happens.
One of the requirements for my Psychology degree was a class focusing on psychological tests: how they are made, interpreted, weighted, and scored. This might sound dry but it was one of the most fascinating classes I had. These tests are much more complex then one might guess at first glance.
For instance, well designed psych tests always include ‘lie detector’ questions. These are questions that can help the evaluators determine whether you’re skewing the results of the test by not answering truthfully and consistently. This isn’t a matter of a person lying on the test (though some employment tests have questions focused on that); it’s that we don’t necessarily see ourselves with crystalline clarity at times.
In one popular employment personality test (and I disagree with personality tests being used for employment), a set of questions were focused on finding people who were deliberately lying. The questions were along the lines of “Have you ever lied?”, “Have you ever taken home pens or paper from work?”, “Have you ever…”. In other words, unless a person is a saint, they would answer Yes to at least one of these “lie detector” questions. Not doing so was actually a strong indicator not to hire the person.
Tricky? Devious? Sneaky? You bet, which is what a good personality test should be.
Other questions are focused on clarifying an important characteristic by repeating the same question, but using different language or different words. Or they might use the the opposite of the question, such as “I always want…” and “I never want…”. In the PType test that Jonathon pointed to, the following two questions seemed to me to be an example of this technique:
19. I would most like to be seen as *
27. I most want others to see me as *
In many tests, individual questions are weighted, with some questions considered more ‘key’ to a specific trait then others. In the Myer-Briggs test, I felt one of the best examples of this type of question was the one asking which the test taker valued more: justice or mercy. This question, to me, seemed a particularly strong one for determining whether a person is Judging or Perceiving.
Liz thinks the question is a better indicator for intuition/sensing or perhaps thinking/feeling. A little search found this which indicates that the question is a determiner between thinking and feeling. Dead on, Liz. Guess my perceived view of the question was all wrong. Teach me to judge questions based on my own trigger words.
Regardless of the mechanics of the tests, what’s important about them is that they open a dialogue, with others and with ourselves. They’re not necessarily meant to be definitive, nor are they meant to be punitive or critical or complimentary. They are for awareness, only.
Personal example: In the Myers-Briggs, I’m an INTJ (Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging).
The Introverted rather than Extraverted result isn’t surprising — I think all webloggers are inherently introverted. The Judging over Perceiving result also shouldn’t be surprising to anyone because I’ve written of honor and justice extensively in the past. (A post or two on feminism, sexism, exclusion, and stereotypes comes to mind.) Judging people tend to impose their will on behavior, rather than adapt a more “live and let live” attitude.
My score between iNtuitive and Sensing is the weakest differentiator because I am somewhat experiential, being a sensualist. In fact my score in this regard probably echoes many in the computer fields.
If any score could be considered surprising to those who read my weblog on a fairly regular basis, it would be the score of Thinking over Feeling; especially considering the somewhat volatile nature of my weblog. After all, I am nothing if not passionate. However, this score shouldn’t be a surprise if you understand what the results mean.
I am most comfortable and in most control in a situation that relies more on thinking than feeling. This is one reason I’ve focused most of my writing on technology. In the realm of the feeling, of emotions, I am less sure of myself, in less control and less comfortable. This tends to be demonstrated by my quick temper, followed just as quickly by contrition.
Bottom line: I am not comfortable with writing or talking about emotions, something I’m aware of through self-assessment as well as tests such as the M-B. I really dislike anything related to “I’m Okay, you’re okay”. I can’t stand New Age philosophy. I recoil at love poems. I want to tell people how I feel, but am afraid of boring them with recounting of same. I’ll tell you honestly, and then I’ll tell you to forget it (sound familiar?).
The only way for me to overcome this inhibition about feelings is to deliberately write outside of my comfort threshold; to break down the barriers between thinking and feeling within myself. Sometimes I’m successful, and I burn with a clean, cool flame. Other times I’m not, and I most closely resemble a blowtorch. A really big, out of control blowtorch.
This understanding of self and each other shows the effectiveness of personality tests — they open doors.
In particular, the Myers-Briggs is quite popular in companies as a way of opening doors of communication within a group that is having difficulties among the members. Usually the technique is to have the employees go offsite for a day, as a way of putting all participants in neutral territory. The group would be broken up by name or some other random factor rather than let each person pick their own grouping and seating. This would break down cliques.
The sessions would start with each person taking the M-B test, or an equivalent, and posting their results for all to see. For the rest of day the participants would then discuss what these results mean from a work perspective, both within the groups and globally. This discussion begins the communication process among the members without focusing on any one person’s unique traits or personality.
The process deliberately externalizes the difficulties so that no person feels threatened or challenged. If conducted correctly, the technique is quite effective.
Of course, there was a time when companies got a bit carried away with these tests. When I worked at Boeing, it seemed as if we were at these offsite meetings once a month. And the meetings were conducted by Boeing employees who had been ‘trained’ with some silly weeklong course. As you can imagine, I wasn’t impressed.
In one such meeting, we were split into four groups and then each group was put into a competitive situation with each other. We were to design a set of questions to ask our ‘competitor’ group, and that group would do the same for us. The group that answered the most questions correctly ‘won’.
The focus of the test was to demonstrate some aspect of competitive behavior, who knows what.
After we were given our assignment, I suggested to our group that rather than write difficult questions, let’s write incredibly easy ones. With this, though we wouldn’t be able to control the outcome enough to be the winner, we could control the outcome enough to determine who the winner would be — our ‘competitive’ group.
When the questions started for the first round, the other groups asked the most difficult and bizarre questions you’ve ever heard. Almost impossible to answer. It was then especially laughable when we got to our questions: what color is grass? Do planes walk or fly? What is the round object that circles the earth called?
During the second and subsequent rounds of questions, our ‘competitive’ group got into the spirit of the thing and they started asking incredibly easy questions. Soon the other two groups joined in.
By the time we were finished, our competitive group was first, we were second, the whole room was cracking up, and the team leader was pissed as hell because we had moved outside the boundaries of her training.
My, that was a lot of fun.
(And in case you’re wondering, my PType is Idealist. You guess what Type I am.)