December 6, 2012 at 9:24 pm
patrickmcginnis59 (12/6/2012)
davoscollective (12/6/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/6/2012)
6. Do you prefer to work(a) to deadlines
(b) just "whenever"
Heh something tells me that answering b) would tend to classify me as INJ-UNEMPLOYED.
The idea is to answer based on preference, not on what you've learned how to do. Obviously we all have to work to deadlines, but if there were no deadlines in place would you prefer that? Many people like structure and order in their life, whilst others put up with that because they have to. I'm in the latter category.
Well sure, honestly, I prefer a) as compared to b). heck, I'd say the difference between the two experiences can be every bit as contrasting as comparing the experience of receiving a paycheck against not receiving a paycheck. For that matter, everytime I've attempted to dabble in b) I have been utterly disappointed.
Or maybe you're saying that preferences can't be learned? That Pavlov's dog was born to drool in response to the ringing bell? Or maybe these preferences are instilled in childhood? The fact that you are actually describing preferences as independent of our learning and experiences is pretty interesting in itself!
Most people think that their way of thinking is the only right way and find it hard to understand how anyone could think any differently to themselves.
Yes but it could be that some of those folks are sadly mistaken.
Haha yes I am directly saying that most of those people are sadly mistaken, it wasn't meant to be a suggestion! Part of the learning here is to accept other people's opinions as being valid to them, even if they make no sense to you.
I definitely think that your preferences can change over time, but that is quite different from "learning preferences". The Myers-Briggs test is also known as the "Behavioral Preferences Questionnaire". It, and the Jungian psychology upon which it is based, implies a distinct difference between preference and learned behaviour. I have certainly learned to behave in a way that maintains my employment. On the other hand, I haven't learned new preferences, rather I have shoe-horned my behaviour to suit other people. I accept that for practical reasons we can't really work efficiently as a team without some structure, but there are plenty of bottom up self organising systems out there that contradict that philosophy.
To learn a preference is not really a phrase that makes sense. You might change your preferences based on experiences and consequences of your prior preferences, but the word "preference" is all about you. What do you like and what is it that suits you? I don't think the Pavlov connection is relevant here, it's not an argument about nurture vs nature, rather its an argument about what you want vs what is expected of you. Don't answer the questionnaire in the latter mindset because it will not be a true reflection of yourself.
December 7, 2012 at 6:42 am
DavidL (12/5/2012)
GSquared (12/5/2012)
I once saw a comic (newpaper comics page type thing), titled "Before Astrology was a Science". Had a horoscope on it that went like this:Taurus: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.
Pisces: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.
Gemini: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.
Ares: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.
and so on.
Myers-Briggs comes largely under that heading in my experience. Same for DISC. There's just enough truth and just enough flattery in most "personality types", and they're general enough, that most people will go, "Yeah, that's so me!"
The tests claim extremely high levels of accuracy. I see it more as "a sawed off shotgun in a crowded elevator" kind of situation.
I've actually tested the DISC analysis for accuracy. The whole company I worked for a few years back took the tests. Afterwards, I went around to most of the people who'd taken it, and picked a random personality out of the back of the scoring book, and told each person, "Turns out there was a mistake in scoring your DISC test. This is what the score should have been." Random personality description. Every single one of them read "their correct personality", and responded that, "You're right. That's even more accurate. Thanks." or words to that effect. Not ONE person disagreed with "their correct score", despite totally random choices.
Myers-Briggs works the same way. It will pick up a few things, like very strong crowd avoidance, but outside of extreme cases, it's just "You will interpret vague generalities about human behavior as applying specifically to you".
I don't know anything about DISC, so I can't comment on that.
However I do have some experience with myers-briggs, and as you imply that your 'validity test' would also pierce this balloon, consider this:
If we were to run your test with 100 people, it would mean that 93 would be told that at least one of their introvert/extrovert, thinking/feeling etc. tendencies was in fact wrong. 7 of those 100 (if you randomly select a type from the bag of 15 -- 1 fewer than the total) would be told that they were in fact wrong in all four areas; 27 in three areas, another 27 (note rounding errors) in one area and 40 in two areas.
I don't see people being that fundamentally wrong about themselves.
Call me a skeptic, but I do not think you were in fact testing the validity of the test. I think it more likely your 'experiment' points to something about how people respond when faced with what they perceive to be an outside authority contradicting their opinion. It also likely involves suggestibility, and probably a host of other very complex psychological/emotional/cultural issues.
Of course it tests those thing.
But consider this:
Myers-Briggs question (a real one): Do you prefer working with large groups over smaller meetings?
This is a yes/no (binary) question. Can you see the flaw in it? The logic flaw is HUGE. Gaping! You could sail a carrier battle group through it with room to spare.
Many of the rest of the questions have similar, or worse, flaws in them. The fact that the test is a test and mainly gathers data about asserted ego-reflection as opposed to any objective observation, is the primary flaw, of course, but even ignoring that, it's still rife with questions that don't actually gather the data they are intended to gather.
Yes, I've studied the mechanical aspects of it, from a scientific and mathematical standpoint.
And, as for considering the test valid, think on this: You brought up that people will often (almost always) accept "pronouncements from authority" as factual, valid, and accepted, without challenge. Have you considered what that says about the test itself? Honestly, that's my main point here. You agree with my point completely, whether you realize it or not.
To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 7, 2012 at 7:44 am
Early to middle of the workweek I'm INTP, friday afternoon I'm ESFJ.
December 7, 2012 at 8:51 am
GSquared (12/7/2012)
To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.
Come, come, GSquared. Don't be patronizing....
On a more serious note, my comments were only tangentially about Myers-Briggs and its validity as a descriptor of people.
They were more about whether your test of the Myers-Briggs test was well designed, and I think it was not. I think your null hypothesis was not well formed, nor the alternative hypothesis, nor the test devised to test it, nor the conclusion you reached.
Here is another example of what seems to me shoddy thinking:
GSquared (12/7/2012)
To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.
This is an assertion that is presented as a conclusion, which you’ve invited me to agree with (or not). That is upside down and backwards. Deconstructed, I think it should have been stated something like:
Some people need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).
Some people do not need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).
The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will work on those who need it.
The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will not work on those who do not need it.
I can see a few sticky points here. For example, what does it mean to ‘need’ Myers-Briggs (or tests like it)? How do we determine if someone needs it? By the fact that Myers-Briggs ‘works’ for them? How do we determine that a person does not need Myers-Briggs? Etc.
December 7, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Nadrek (12/5/2012)
The Meyers-Briggs 16 "type" approach is mirrored by David Keirsey in his book "Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence", which is an excellent guide and very reasonably priced (MSRP of $20 in paperback).
I second. I discovered the Meyers-Briggs scale about 14 years ago and purchased Keirsey's book. I still refer to it from time to time. It's an excellent book, bringing this abstract concept of personality types into the concrete and giving practical applications.
As for my type, I have come up INTJ many times through the years, but I have concluded that I am more of an INTP. I'm a developer, not a DBA. I thrive on the creative aspects of software and database development, but I have little patience for the managerial and bureaucratic realities of database systems. (And I am grateful for those of you who do!)
I don't have a problem with using personality assessments in the workplace; in fact, I applaud them. However, management must be willing to actually use the findings. Otherwise, why go to the expense? My previous employer made a big push with Gallup's "Strengths" assessment. Yet I fail to see how we actually used it, particularly in the situation that led to them firing me.
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
December 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm
DavidL (12/7/2012)
GSquared (12/7/2012)
To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.
Come, come, GSquared. Don't be patronizing....
On a more serious note, my comments were only tangentially about Myers-Briggs and its validity as a descriptor of people.
They were more about whether your test of the Myers-Briggs test was well designed, and I think it was not. I think your null hypothesis was not well formed, nor the alternative hypothesis, nor the test devised to test it, nor the conclusion you reached.
Here is another example of what seems to me shoddy thinking:
GSquared (12/7/2012)
To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.
This is an assertion that is presented as a conclusion, which you’ve invited me to agree with (or not). That is upside down and backwards. Deconstructed, I think it should have been stated something like:
Some people need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).
Some people do not need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).
The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will work on those who need it.
The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will not work on those who do not need it.
I can see a few sticky points here. For example, what does it mean to ‘need’ Myers-Briggs (or tests like it)? How do we determine if someone needs it? By the fact that Myers-Briggs ‘works’ for them? How do we determine that a person does not need Myers-Briggs? Etc.
Let's cut to the chase. We're not talking the same language as each other. You'll never understand the points I was making. It's as simple as that.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 7, 2012 at 2:23 pm
This all (in particular, MB) sounds like the same bad idea that I saw in a movie once. If you didn't have the right type of DNA, you weren't allowed to do certain jobs no matter what your skill set or abilites were. In fact, I believe that tests like MB are actually a form of privacy invasion and won't actually detect whether or not someone will go postal or not. Neither will it identify if someone will do a good job or not.
Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 9, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)
In fact, I believe that tests like MB ... won't actually detect whether or not someone will go postal or not. Neither will it identify if someone will do a good job or not.
And that's not the point of the MB scale. It's a personality assessment, not a skills assessment or psychological profile. It shouldn't surprise anyone that DBAs and developers have similar personalities. In fact, your comment about OCD affirms this.
As for your comment about personality assessments being an "invasion of privacy," I see nothing of the sort. It's just explaining what everyone is going to see anyway.
Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)
This all (in particular, MB) sounds like the same bad idea that I saw in a movie once. If you didn't have the right type of DNA, you weren't allowed to do certain jobs no matter what your skill set or abilites were.
Seriously?? Did you really just equate personality assessment with a genetic caste system?
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
December 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)
Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! 😉
I was being a bit flippant when I said DBA's are OCD, I think perhaps "perfectionist" is a better description. Real OCD is a terrible debilatating disease that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
To your other points, I agree that if these tools are abused and used to discriminate then that is evil. The idea is not to do that, but use them as an opportunity to reflect and examine your own behaviour. I think you know that, so I apologise if that sounds preachy.
As for Gsquared's comments, I think there's a lot of anger there and I hope you can work through that. My grandfather used to say to me that we are better served being skeptical than being cynical, because cynicism leads to a closed mind.
December 10, 2012 at 6:33 am
davoscollective (12/9/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)
Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! 😉I was being a bit flippant when I said DBA's are OCD, I think perhaps "perfectionist" is a better description. Real OCD is a terrible debilatating disease that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Agreed.
To your other points, I agree that if these tools are abused and used to discriminate then that is evil. The idea is not to do that, but use them as an opportunity to reflect and examine your own behaviour. I think you know that, so I apologise if that sounds preachy.
The problem is that companies ARE, in fact, using them to discriminate.
As for Gsquared's comments, I think there's a lot of anger there and I hope you can work through that. My grandfather used to say to me that we are better served being skeptical than being cynical, because cynicism leads to a closed mind.
Actually and considering that companies actually are using such things to discriminate, I don't blame him a bit.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2012 at 6:41 am
davoscollective (12/9/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)
Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! 😉I was being a bit flippant when I said DBA's are OCD, I think perhaps "perfectionist" is a better description. Real OCD is a terrible debilatating disease that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
To your other points, I agree that if these tools are abused and used to discriminate then that is evil. The idea is not to do that, but use them as an opportunity to reflect and examine your own behaviour. I think you know that, so I apologise if that sounds preachy.
As for Gsquared's comments, I think there's a lot of anger there and I hope you can work through that. My grandfather used to say to me that we are better served being skeptical than being cynical, because cynicism leads to a closed mind.
Nah. Anger is for when you're so confused you just have to stop everything.
As mentioned, we're not using the same language. Same words, yes. Same language, no.
Honestly, I find the whole thing (personality tests that don't do anything useful, et al) immensely amusing. Much better than TV sitcoms for hours of comedy.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 10, 2012 at 8:02 am
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
The problem is that companies ARE, in fact, using them to discriminate.
And companies discriminate against people who don't know certain programming languages. That's part of doing business: choosing the right people for the job.
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
December 10, 2012 at 11:54 am
jbnv (12/10/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
The problem is that companies ARE, in fact, using them to discriminate.
And companies discriminate against people who don't know certain programming languages. That's part of doing business: choosing the right people for the job.
What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB are not accurate and do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 10, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.
Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.
Jay Bienvenu | http://bienv.com | http://twitter.com/jbnv
December 10, 2012 at 12:21 pm
jbnv (12/10/2012)
Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)
What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.
Ok... how are such profile tests actually useful, then?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 72 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply