Re: Myers-Briggs (WAS Profile)

Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs (WAS Profile)
From: lyndsey -dot- amott -at- docsymmetry -dot- com
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:40:54 -0500

Mike O. writes:


Just wondering: If personallity typing is so useful and insightful, why is
it being embraced (and paid for) by employers rather than employees?
Mike O.
Meyers-Briggs type: MYOB

Companies spend fortunes trying to hire perfect employees, or rather, trying to avoid hiring, training, and firing duds. They'd rather avoid the cost if they can, so when somebody comes along and says "I have this test--yes, a real PSYCHOLOGY test--that will help you avoid the costly mistake of hiring a dud," companies jump. The return on investment is pretty good too, since the cost of the testing can be written off as a business expense. The fact that only big companies can afford to do these tests explains why employees don't race out to buy them. The fact that Queendom is so popular suggests that they would if they could.
As a contractor, I--thankfully--have never been forced to do any of these tests, but I have been at work when all the employees have come back from their M-B testing, or their Eagle-Peacock testing, or their whatever-the-flavour-of-the-month testing, and they all come back delighted and pleased with the results and they talk about it for days. Everyone wants to be understood, and these tests give the impression that they *are* understood. I'm sure that these tests are about as accurate as those ridiculous emails that go around: Choose your favourite colour; now name a person who is close to you; now name your favourite animal; etc., etc. The results are all intended to give people a warm fuzzy feeling, rather like astrology.
I believe that every intelligent person regards, as you do, any form of psychological testing with suspicion, and so they should. I have a friend who majored in psychology at university and she described a standardized test used by most psychologists to determine the normalness/looniness of their subjects. Apparently, the norm results of this test are based on the results of a group of firefighters in Missouri (well, some place in the States)! Kinda scary if you ask me.
The Myers-Briggs test is based on Jung's theory of personalities, which he based on, among other things, astrology. Who could take such a thing seriously? OTOH, it's fun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lyndsey Amott
www.docsymmetry.com
Winnipeg, MB R3G 2J3




References:
re: Profile: From: Rachael Lininger

Previous by Author: Re: WORD 2002 with sp2 --issue with formatting/styles
Next by Author: Re: Self-promo in dangerous times
Previous by Thread: Re: Myers-Briggs (WAS Profile)
Next by Thread: re: Profile


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads