If you have a chance, it's worth a read. It's on my list of the top ten most important books I've ever read and it permanently altered the way I think about the way we think about ourselves.
That sounds interesting, I'll add that to my order list. What came to mind for me around this topic, was Edward Said's 'Orientalism'. Is an amazing critique.
I confess I don't have a literal list of ten books, but there is a small handful of books that shifted my way of thinking. A simple list of these books would require a great deal of explanation. None of them are generally considered "great works" and almost never make such lists.
Some, like "Zigler on Selling" just came to me when I really needed it, and it ended up changing the trajectory of my life.
There might not be an actual list, it's a common idiom. A way to say "I won't spend the effort to classify it precisely, but it definitely wouldn't be below 10th place."
> The advice to “know thyself” is ancient, carved on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi
Not an expert but I'm a bit annoyed when this comes up.
In ancient morals, the injonction to Γνῶθι σεαυτόν was likely to be understood in terms as "know your position, you are not a god (even if favoured by the fortune)".
It may well be a sentence against "hubris", with little relationship with the particular interpretation Socrate had of this sentence in Delphi.
Your understanding could be correct, but I've heard of others as well. I had heard/understood for it to be quite the opposite, based on speculation that the greek saying is likely taken from an Egyptian inscription "know thyself, and you will know the gods" aka the body is the temple of god. I believe Socrates expanded the statement to mean "the unexamined life is not worth living".
Well what else would you use as a heuristic? If you don't have a lot of time to know a person, then in some cases a personality profile might be a good idea. If you have 8 hours worth of free time on a given day to know a person, then having a chat helps a lot more.
But's what the value in practice? Is there any real proof that we can achieve superior results by interacting with colleagues in different ways based on their Myers-Briggs personality test results or whatever? People seem to take this stuff on faith but the actual evidence is distinctly lacking.
Myers-Briggs has poor predictive power. It's popular because it doesn't really tell you much, and it's fun to talk about, like astrology.
Big Five has been shown to be highly predictive of various things like career choice and income. But it's not so fun to find out that you are highly disagreeable, low
in conscientiousness, and high in neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
The introvert/extrovert dimension is as predictive as the identical dimension in the Big 5. I've made great use of knowing when a colleague, friend, etc. is introvert or extrovert regardless of which test told used. Even if MBTI didn't quite hit the mark historically, I don't see why there are so many haters. It's part of working towards better models. It's a worthwhile pursuit to try to characterize stuff like personality. MBTI is strictly more useful than Astrology just as BIg5 is strictly more useful than MBTI. Future models will surpass these with things like hybrid self-report + neuro-imaging approaches. People really seem to feel threatened by being characterized though. It's a bummer.
I certainly feel threatened. If you knew about my "pre existing condition," you'd know that I'm threatened by information that claims to be an authoritative record about me, that I can't control, and whose use I can't control.
I can't prevent any "unofficial" interpretation of this information.
Making it "better" only makes it more threatening, by making it more believable or making it harder for an intelligent person to game the test.
I treat people differently based on gender, age, education and many other things i know or observe about them and I think knowing Meyers Briggs may be another useful hint. You just have to avoid expecting that all INTPs or all engineers are always the same.
Yes - it makes about as much sense as any mapping into predefined fictional categories. The anti-elevator pitch for MB is: two imaginative persons of no scientific background read a bunch of psychology, invented a model around what they learned, and no-one would have heard of them since - except, in came a consultant who said "I can sell this! Effing yay, bring the cash in!"
Note the tendency of people to invent all sorts of things in falsifiable fields - like perpetual motion machines, and so on. There's no falsification mechanism in psychology...
Analogously, I'm pretty sure if astrology used some non-falsifiable grounds for it's input variables it would still be a reputable academic pursuit.
The statement about falsification mechanisms is incorrect.
In fact, one of the problems with the Myers-Briggs is that it is continuously brought up in these discussions, even when experts in the area of behavioral individual differences dismiss it because it is lacking in evidence (and it has never really been dominant, or at least not for decades). There's all sorts of model-testing that lends support to some models (e.g., the Big Five, which is mentioned in the essay) and not the M-B, in terms of its internal empirical characteristics and predictive properties. And they do involve falsifiable predictions of multiple sorts.
The problem is that people complain about nonsense such as the M-B being nothing more than a money-making consulting scam, but then don't take that assertion seriously, in the sense that they assume the consultants are scientists.
It's as if con artists were selling perpetual motion machines, and HR departments started buying them, and then we started complaining about physics being non falsifiable, rather than about HR departments and business administration not understanding physics. It's all strawman arguments.
As an exercise, for example, I recommend someone searching for modern basic research using Myers-Briggs uncritically in mainstream psychology journals. You probably won't find it except for as some kind of deceptive ruse in an experimental protocol.
As for measuring behavior, any measurement throws away information. That's the tension: weight, BMI, blood pressure, temperature (under what pressure?), etc. The problem isn't in the measurement, it's in how that measurement is used and interpreted, and how much information is thrown away.
So, nothing is wrong with getting a measure of emotional-behavioral state. The problem is overgeneralizing from that, across time or situations, overestimating its predictive information, failing to consider uncertainties or biases of measurement, and so forth. BMI is an imperfect summary of someone's physical health, but it does have utility. The danger isn't in BMI per se, it's in assuming it won't change, assuming things about the reasons for a given BMI, ignoring how any given BMI was calculated, and so forth.
The problem with non-falsifiability is that let's say we avoid 'overgeneralizing' from a categorization as you suggest. And instead we stick to whatever tightly constrained region of classification or prediction you'd consider acceptable. And so we take a Myers-Briggs test and it says this individual should exhibit this class of behavior. And it turns out they don't. Would this pose a problem to Myers-Briggs? Not in the least. Okay, what if it was a hundred? A thousand? A billion? There's no magic number where it's suddenly a problem.
I do agree with the person you're responding to that astrology would likely still be considered somewhat scientific if it didn't rely on things that we know to be false. For instance astrology mixes Mercury starting to go backwards as a key player in its predictions. The problem being there that Mercury doesn't go backwards. It was/is an optical illusion based on an inaccurate understanding of our solar system. But outside of getting some things fundamentally wrong astrology is the same as any other unfalsifiable model. Being wrong doesn't matter, and you can just constantly add onto it and claim you're 'refining' it.
Maybe even that geocentric model though is the same story. Part of the reason the geocentric model of our universe lasted so long was because, with the technology at the time, it wasn't completely falsifiable. Mercury needs to go backwards to make this model work? Other planets need to go into crazy floral sharped curvy patterns to make it work? Well okay then I Mercury goes backwards and planets go in floral shaped curvy patterns. If you wanted to suggest a different model, such as a heliocentric one, that'd involve throwing away literally centuries of work and entirely discrediting astrology (which was at one time a pursuit as scholarly as any other) as a science. People blame the church for the geocentric model, but there was much more to it than just that.
At least weight, BMI, pressure, temperature are measurable quantities. They don't tell the whole story, but what they do indicate is reasonably accurate and comparable and reproducible.
I don't think that can be said for characteristics of someone's personality. It's hard to even define them, much less measure them.
The test has low psychometric value but the underlying model is interesting [1]. I see it more as a checklist on what to consider about a person. Mainly: what is important to him or her?
It's worth noting that modern psychology hasn't found any scientific backing for Jung's theories.
I think most people consider it an interesting part of psychology's history, but not actually useful.
When I took some undergraduate level Psychology courses there was nothing to make me think Jung had been discounted as "an interesting part of ... history, but not actually useful" - with several comments from various instructors that his work could be tremendously beneficial but incredibly dense. FWIW the field of Psychology is full of theories and models with highly subjective applications and widespread disagreement on what is "best" for a given individual, hence the existence of so many institutional guidelines and diagnostic criteria (and even the DSM, as it changed from edition IV to V, has generated a tremendous amount of controversy among professionals, scientists, and laypeople alike). There's been a lot of coverage in the media in the past few months/years about a "replication crisis" in sciences such as this, as well, where a substantial portion of published scientific results [presumably the only "scientific backing" a theory can have in a situation like this] have outright failed to be replicated by subsequent researchers.
EDIT: I'd appreciate any further detail you might have on your specific criticism of Jung, as I've apparently attracted some downvotes. I guess I'll just add that another thing I remember hearing about in school was that a lot of Jung's theories were considered impenetrable without having access to his so-called "Red Book" - which was not widely available until ~2009.
According to Wikipedia the "Red Book" was written during an odd time for Jung:
>Biographers and critics have disagreed whether these years in Jung's life should be seen as "a creative illness", a period of introspection, a psychotic break, or simply madness.
Which makes me wonder about the context of what you heard in school. By that I mean people seem to agree that what Jung wrote makes sense to a lot of people, so there's something of worth in there.
What it doesn't make it is scientific. There's not a lot of people currently arriving at the same conclusions as Jung.
I'll admit I don't know anything about psychology (just what I've heard second hand), but I do find people like Jung quite interesting.
Thanks for the reply; I've read only a small fraction of Jung's vast body of work and certainly don't always agree with [or understand] his conclusions, but I've also felt he was pretty moderate in drawing them and often fills his professional writing (not his private, personal "Red Book" and related materials) with disclaimers and warnings about not jumping to various conclusions or misinterpretations (some of which seem to manage in spite of that to be used to this day as characterizations of his text).
What I meant about the "Red Book"'s significance (and I agree that it's "odd") is that it tends to show some of the "raw data" of Jung's personal experience from which he was deriving his hypotheses that otherwise seem very abstract (and for that reason were not relatable to me when I was in school). Its extreme subjectivity and unscientific quality is a main reason Jung and his heirs did not wish for it to be published, and successfully kept it from being so for many decades.
Perhaps in terms of scientific rigor there is much to improve upon with Jung's work. I fully agree that he is "quite interesting", and still think there is likely something that could be gained scientifically from critically revisiting some of his ideas in a modern context.
How specifically do you treat people differently based on their personality test score? Can you give some examples? And how can you be sure that this practice is actually effective rather than just being confirmation bias?
I wouldn't trust a MBTI personality score because the test is too susceptible to social desirability bias. But on the other hand, assuming that you "are" an INTJ and knowing that your manager "is" an ESFJ, you should be careful to consider social harmony [1] on top of efficiency that you naturally value [2] when taking a decision at work.
Now, indeed nobody is a pure ESFJ nor a pure INTJ. People tend to get hung up a little bit too much on the letters.
It's a very subjective thing like all other social things. If someone has an "I" in their type it makes sense that the person maybe doesn't feel rewarded when you go to a loud nightclub for a celebration. Again, there are no hard rules but they are a useful hint like many other things.
It's valuable because if you know the test well you can have a good guess about how someone answered the questions, which tells quite a bit about them, especially if you know their raw scores.
> I treat people differently based on gender, age, education...
I really try not to until their behavior tells you to. Where practical, I think we should strive to treat people the same regardless of these attributes.
"You just have to avoid expecting that all INTPs or all engineers are always the same."
Why? If there's validity to the personally profile, you'll get the right result 60, 70, or 80% of the time. Probably more, if you don't care specifically about finding the differences.
In my view, it could be a confidence booster for people who have a hard time with social interactions, such as some managers. They can feel: "Now I know how to manage this person because they're an EMTB and I'm an EJSV."
It could also give someone a way to rationalize their place in life, so they don't feel uncertain or inferior about it. "Now I know it's because I'm a JVWA. What a revelation."
I recently had to ask 5-8 colleagues to fill out a TRACOM "Social Styles Assessment" for an upcoming training program at work, so this is something I've been curious about as well. It appears that TRACOM's Social Style Model is more "effective" than the leading Meyers-Briggs program [0], but I'm not clear on how that compares to people who do not participate in any training/assessment at all.
edit: from the linked journal article:
> In addition, 73% of these professionals believe that interpersonal skills training is effective despite the lack of empirical evidence for such a claim.
Would be curious to know the difference between TRACOM and DiSC as they seem almost identical. I took a DISC assessment in college as part of a leadership program and thought it was reasonably on point. Have found the Gallup StrengthsFinders assessment more holistic and personalized.
Tracom's styles:
DRIVER: ( Low responsiveness, high assertiveness ) Task orientated, clearly defined goals, committed, determined, risk takers, efficient.
EXPRESSIVE: ( High Responsiveness, High Assertiveness ) People orientated, centre of attention, positive, emotional, talkative, enthusiastic, dramatic.
AMIABLE: ( High Responsiveness, Low Assertiveness ) Loyal, personable, patient, Uncomfortable with risk, Non-Confrontational, Dislike pressure, Enjoy the company of others.
Dominance - The D-style is the most aggressive of the 4 styles. D-styles are quick, competitive and results-focused.
Influence - I-styles are the most outgoing and social of the 4 styles. They enjoy being the center of attention. I-styles like interacting with others and meeting new people.
Steadiness - S-styles are calm, steady, and the most laid back of the 4 styles. S-styles are more reserved and less animated than the outgoing I-styles.
Correctness - C-styles are the most analytical of the 4 styles. C-styles focus on details, facts, information, and proof.
There are a few citizen science projects around the broad emerging field of "psychometrics". Conceivably to steer its course toward something more beneficial than microtargeting ;)
Where I think this could help is in primary education. Particularly in the design of a bespoke curriculum or self guided-study. Taking into account the multitudes and variety of intelligences that can emerge in a population.
But the real money quote from the article, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading: "The idea of cutting people up into groups is problematic."
To me this lies at the heart of the problem with discrimination.
People are being reduced to a set of categories instead of being seen as individuals - sometimes in good faith with consequences opposite to what was intended.
>When we define ourselves, we become more like that which we define, in what philosopher Ian Hacking calls “the looping effect of mankind.” Biological phenomena will carry on regardless of what it is called. The heart will continue beating whether the act of muscle contraction is called “the heartbeat” or something else. Not so for the intricacies of psychology: the proud introverts become more introverted, the neurotic more neurotic, some people buy T-shirts that say no, i’m not a sociopath, I’m just an intj.
Is it even possible to construct a "personality test" that avoids suggesting people identify with negative traits?
I don't think that any traits are inherently negative. For example I have some autistic or Asperger's traits. I had spent many years being confused that I wasn't able to do some things socially that were super easy for others. After learning about this I just felt relief. These traits are part of me like my height and hair color. Not negative, not positive.
Depends what you want out of life. Your height is what it is, so best not to dwell on it, but, if you are a man, being 6'1 instead of 5'6 will change how most people view you. If the words have any meaning, it would be a negative to be that short compared to being tall.
I disagree. I consider some parts of my personality to be unambiguously bad and prefer they would change. I prefer this kind of self-image to the current vogue of never seeing the negatives.
If you are able to change them, then view them as negative and change them. But others can't be changed or at least they are difficult to change. I have spent almost 50 years trying to figure out how to behave correctly in certain social situations but never found a way to do so. Now I just say "f..k it" and don't even try. Instead I focus on things I can change. I don't beat myself up anymore over things I can't change. I find this much more productive.
If you don't mind my asking, could you give a few examples of these social situations and what troubles you had?
I only ask because I went through rather an opposite path of believing from a young age that because I couldn't manage certain social situations that I must be on the spectrum in some way^[1], and once I changed who I was in those situations with I was able to relearn how to work in them.
So it's interesting to me to hear what someone on other end experienced.
^[1] (even after my school sending me for analysis cleared me of that almost immediately, I assumed there must be something. Later it turned out I was in a very inhospitable environment growing up and had developed coping mechanisms for being around people that didn't express around psychologists or psychiatrists)
For example I have never done well in group situations. I see other people having fun and bonding while I am on the sidelines, don't have fun and don't make connections. I have tried a lot of things but I never got comfortable. This contrasts to other things like public speaking or talking to women. There I took advice and could implement it with a lot of effort and eventual improvement. But there are situations where I simply don't improve despite other people handling them naturally without effort. I also can identify with some typical autistic traits.
I would compare it to a dyslexic ex coworker. I can look at a sheet of paper and read it within seconds, understand it and spot spelling errors. He could stare at it for hours and only see a jumble of letters. I practiced a lot with him but he just didn't improve. On the other hand the same person could go to a bar, look at people, and immediately he knew who to talk to in what way. I go to a bar, see random people, but simply can't read the situation.
Does this make sense? I have improved a lot from a miserable childhood up to my 30s to now being socially reasonable functioning but I have some hard limits I can't overcome no matter how I try. Now I am accepting this and feel liberated from pressure.
> But there are situations where I simply don't improve despite other people handling them naturally without effort
When you say you don't improve, are you referring to internally or externally, as in, are you not improving in that you can't pass for someone handling the situation, or not improving in that you can pass for handling the situation but you don't get any more comfortable?
When I actually started to improve I found that I had previously been going about it the wrong way around, where I was trying to force myself to feel comfortable hoping the cues and behaviours would come later, what actually helped was getting basic (basic to others anyway) tips and advice on how to fit into the situations and then letting the comfort and confidence come later.
Obviously we're in different life situations, but your perspective is super interesting here.
100% agree with you. It's the difference between self-improvement and attempting to squeeze a square peg through a round hole. I can't change the autism any more than I can make myself taller, so why bother?
Unfortunately, a lot of people harbor negative stereotypes about some traits, such as introversion and anti-authoritarianism. People may also believe that they have a better chance of manipulating you, if they know something special about you.
And "there are no wrong answers" may just be a deceit, to encourage you to reveal those traits. Of course there are wrong answers.
Gender dysphoria was a "disorder" back in the day.
Disorders are defined by the society in which the trait (or "symptoms") arise. In South America, people who hear voices and have visions are recognized as having the potential to become a shaman. Shamans are seen as the protectors and healers of a village-- lauded and respected. In North America they are called schizophrenics. We distrust schizophrenics here and don't really know at all how to "help" them. They don't have a place here.
I have autism and I don't see myself as being disordered. I have trouble sometimes in North America, but any help I need is due to my non-alignment with the culture, not due to myself inherently.
Extroversion could be a disorder in a place like Japan, where personal space, privacy, subtlety, boundaries between strangers, and silence are highly valued. In America extroversion is often a huge advantage.
Nothing is a defect in the right context, just like anything could be in another.
I think there are a few distinct ideas to look at here:
1. Historical hubris of "authorities" : This isn't unique to psychology-- authorities in religion, philosophy, medicine have long declared the most absurd things with no observational basis (e.g. 4 humors).
2. Attempt to quantify people in general (personality being one dimension of this). Certainly mass measurement is useful sometimes - e.g. changes in baby birth-weights. However measurement can also be a tool for unjust reductionism.
3. The woeful oversimplicity of "personality research." The most respected model only has 5 attributes. Certainly there are many personality traits beyond just 5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
If you have a chance, it's worth a read. It's on my list of the top ten most important books I've ever read and it permanently altered the way I think about the way we think about ourselves.