Recently, I've turned my overanalytic abilities on my friends and co-workers, with interesting results.
This started several weeks ago when I was at dinner with a friend. I was telling him about a close friend of mine. After I was done talking, he said, "Oh, she's a Healer."
"What does that mean?" I asked. It turns out he was referring to Myers Briggs-style personality tests.
I first took one of these in middle school and got INFP (the Healer). I clearly remember, throughout the test, attempting to manipulate my results so that I got INFP, since I'd sneaked a look at the "best careers" page and seen "writer" listed under "INFP."
I've returned to the concept in the past week, ever since casually taking one online and getting my actual personality type. This was really helpful to me in figuring out why I am the way I am, and so I sent the link to several of my friends and co-workers.
At work, the tests spurred a really interesting discussion about our career goals, and how they intersected with our "types." The results also helped me understand a co-worker with whom I'd had a somewhat difficult relationship in the past. I suddenly realized why, despite our many initial difficulties, we'd managed to reach a point of mutual admiration and respect.
The tests also gave me deeper insight into some of my friends, particularly those whose profiles really fit them. There were some - like a friend who got the Teacher profile - that made absolutely no sense. But many others were really spot-on. Since it's hard to take a personality test wrong, I can only assume that the ones that didn't make sense were people whose types were not as clear-cut (one or the other). It also gave me insight into some of the recurring issues I've had with certain people I've known.
But the other really valuable lesson I'm learning from this experiment is that there's a wide diversity of traits, achievement, etc even among people with the same personality type, or in the same personality-type group. I do think that people in the same group (Idealists, for example) will more instinctively understand each other's motivations and values. But these types are not profesionally prescriptive. I know several artists who aren't "Artisans," for example.
Interestingly, these tests are NOT scientific, which sort of makes me wonder if I'm seeing validity in them the same way that other people see validity in horoscopes. (And which would also explain why at least half the people who've taken the test with me don't seem to get accurate results.) Obviously making any sort of organizational rule about a group of employees - or even one - based upon a nonscientific personality test would be a huge mistake. I've only asked people I know to take these tests, so I know when the results aren't valid.
In terms of the theory behind the Myers Briggs test, "Jung's methods primarily included introspection and anecdote." With this test, many people raise the spectre of "confirmation bias" - where you fit your personality to the vague results. I think this is definitely a risk, but more for those who aren't aware of the risk. There are things about my type that are spot on, but at the end of the day there's a lot that the description can't - and doesn't - account for. The fact that I've had the same type for about the past five years (now that I think about it) doesn't necessarily suggest anything, except that Jung's grasp of introspection and anecdote is impressive, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss these two things, even if they aren't the totality of science.
Anyway, it's late and I'm done with all this, but suffice it to say that this has been an interesting experiment, and has definitely helped me understand what I look for and how I relate to other people. Which is always valuable. I doubt this would be useful outside a personal context, and that too in an admittedly limited fashion, but still very interesting.
This started several weeks ago when I was at dinner with a friend. I was telling him about a close friend of mine. After I was done talking, he said, "Oh, she's a Healer."
"What does that mean?" I asked. It turns out he was referring to Myers Briggs-style personality tests.
I first took one of these in middle school and got INFP (the Healer). I clearly remember, throughout the test, attempting to manipulate my results so that I got INFP, since I'd sneaked a look at the "best careers" page and seen "writer" listed under "INFP."
I've returned to the concept in the past week, ever since casually taking one online and getting my actual personality type. This was really helpful to me in figuring out why I am the way I am, and so I sent the link to several of my friends and co-workers.
At work, the tests spurred a really interesting discussion about our career goals, and how they intersected with our "types." The results also helped me understand a co-worker with whom I'd had a somewhat difficult relationship in the past. I suddenly realized why, despite our many initial difficulties, we'd managed to reach a point of mutual admiration and respect.
The tests also gave me deeper insight into some of my friends, particularly those whose profiles really fit them. There were some - like a friend who got the Teacher profile - that made absolutely no sense. But many others were really spot-on. Since it's hard to take a personality test wrong, I can only assume that the ones that didn't make sense were people whose types were not as clear-cut (one or the other). It also gave me insight into some of the recurring issues I've had with certain people I've known.
But the other really valuable lesson I'm learning from this experiment is that there's a wide diversity of traits, achievement, etc even among people with the same personality type, or in the same personality-type group. I do think that people in the same group (Idealists, for example) will more instinctively understand each other's motivations and values. But these types are not profesionally prescriptive. I know several artists who aren't "Artisans," for example.
Interestingly, these tests are NOT scientific, which sort of makes me wonder if I'm seeing validity in them the same way that other people see validity in horoscopes. (And which would also explain why at least half the people who've taken the test with me don't seem to get accurate results.) Obviously making any sort of organizational rule about a group of employees - or even one - based upon a nonscientific personality test would be a huge mistake. I've only asked people I know to take these tests, so I know when the results aren't valid.
In terms of the theory behind the Myers Briggs test, "Jung's methods primarily included introspection and anecdote." With this test, many people raise the spectre of "confirmation bias" - where you fit your personality to the vague results. I think this is definitely a risk, but more for those who aren't aware of the risk. There are things about my type that are spot on, but at the end of the day there's a lot that the description can't - and doesn't - account for. The fact that I've had the same type for about the past five years (now that I think about it) doesn't necessarily suggest anything, except that Jung's grasp of introspection and anecdote is impressive, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss these two things, even if they aren't the totality of science.
Anyway, it's late and I'm done with all this, but suffice it to say that this has been an interesting experiment, and has definitely helped me understand what I look for and how I relate to other people. Which is always valuable. I doubt this would be useful outside a personal context, and that too in an admittedly limited fashion, but still very interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment