A scientist speaks

"outsider" wrote in message

Lucys Mom wrote in
:

Yowie wrote:
"Lucys Mom" wrote in message


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-B...Type_Indicator )

I test out as an "F" too, ISFJ if I remember correctly.

I have't done that particular test above, but all my other Myers
Briggs tests turn out to be INFP if I take the test at home and a
INTP if I take the test at work. I have a strong "I", a very strong
"N" and a very strong "P", the "T/F" are always very weak
(obviously). I used to have a very strong "I" as well, but that has
weakened over th years as I've felt more confident in myself.

Yowie
I wonder why the difference? Any ideas?


I would say "mindset". You put on your "working" head and that is
who you are until you take it off.

Thats what I think too - since the difference beteen my 'T' and my 'F'
scores are usually just a few points either way, it usually only takes a few
questions to shift my score between getting an 'F' and getting a 'T' - so if
I'm in 'work mode' where I am a scientist, I tend toward more 'thinking'
preferences, and if I'm at home I'll show a slight preference for 'F', but
really, the difference between the two is negligible and I often feel like I
walk between both worlds, being a 'translator' between the two.

Oh, according to various otehr stuff I've read about this Myers Briggs
studies (also known as "Kiernsey Temperements") and had to endure at work as
part the legally required annual 'staff development' courses they have to
give, allegedly the main personality type which emerges around puberty is
the one that will show up first and foremost in the personality testing, but
other 'secondary' traits will develop later, so that they are 'learned'
methods of coping rather than the innate one (which is the one the test
finds). So, whilst I am *naturally* an INxP ('x' means I could go either
way) I can also be extroverted and/or sensing when I need to be and can slip
more comfortably into this secondary role and even tertiary role the more
often I practice at it (if I have got up enough 'steam' I do suddenly take
leadership roles... until the emergency has passed and them am happy to go
back to being a follower, for example). The one I truly struggle to do is
'J' as I am just a naturally disorganised 'go with the flow' sort of person,
but I think becoming a parent and *needing* to be organised and ordered has
helped alot. I no doubt will forever stuggle with filing systems and keeping
things neat and tidy, but I definatley getting better at it as I age.

Ont he whole, though, I thinkt hat personality tests like these can be
helpful to better understand oneself and one's realtionship with other
people, but absoltuely should not be used to judge other people's abilities
or worth. I certainly wouldn't hire or fire based merely on a personality
test.

Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.

Yowie wrote:
"Lucys Mom" wrote in message

outsider wrote:

*snip*

Think before you act/speak. It is a lot easier than taking it back
later.

sheesh!


Very well said. Thanks,


As another scientist, I very much *try* to say (and write) things I won't
need to retract later. I'll speak and post 'to the best of my knowledge' on
factual matters, but when it comes to emotional responses, then I'm just as
human as the next person and can quite easily say the dumbest things. I try
to be mindful of that at all times, and go over such posts very carefully
and and with great consideration and sometimes it takes me over a day to
make them as neutral and diplomatic as possible. Of course sometimes even
that fails, and there has also been the few cases I've actualy flown off the
handle and posted without thinking first, but I would like to think that is
a very rare occurance.

I'd like to believe that people here know me well enough that I will say
what I think, but do my best to do so without being intentionally hurtful to
others. If there has been unintentional hurt caused, then I do, truly,
apologise.

Yowie
FWIW, I didn't find either post, yours or Andy's, inflammatory in the
least. Merely pointing out another aspect to the situation, which is,
to a certain extent, how scientists and engineers work. I make my
living being able to turn a problem around and figure out the best
solution from multiple angles. I sure do see and feel the emotional
angle, though.

On a lighter note, I told DH about the "mouse, Cary and Pickles"
incident and he snorted his Diet Coke!! Lucky he wasn't on the 'puter
at that point!!!

--Eric, Kim and the New Chigger Ranch Crew

Yowie wrote:

Ont he whole, though, I thinkt hat personality tests like these can be
helpful to better understand oneself and one's realtionship with other
people, but absoltuely should not be used to judge other people's abilities
or worth. I certainly wouldn't hire or fire based merely on a personality
test.

Yeah, I don't think they have a lot of scientific basis. As far as I
know, the typing system has never been tested very rigorously.

Nonetheless, I find it a lot of fun to think about, because I enjoy
making categories and analyzing data (in this case, humans ) to see
which category they fit in.

I also think of it as a handy descriptor of a person's preferences and
personality traits. I don't necessarily believe that it's innate. (I do
think we have innate biological temperaments, some of which may or may
not correspond to MBTI.) And I definitely do not believe that the types
are immutable. People do change throughout their lives - an introverted
child can become an outgoing adult, for example.

In general I see it as a shorthand for describing people I know and
explaining some of their behaviors. And I think it can be a helpful
way to explain why certain people don't understand each other or get
along, but it's not that different from saying something like, "He's
a neat freak and she's a hoarder" to describe people's differences.
At least the way I use it, it's based on casual observation, not on
serious testing. So it's just a language I use to describe people,
and for that usage, I think it's a pretty cleverly devised language.

I think it's unprofessional to use this system in a work environment,
especially in a hiring situation. Not getting a job because of a result
on an MBTI test would be - if it could be proven - grounds for a lawsuit,
IMO. I once took a class on "team building" skills or something like
that, at one place I worked several years ago. It turned out to be all
about the MBTI. And it was a whole lot of fun, I really enjoyed it. But
when my manager asked me if I thought our whole team should take the
class, I said no. To me it was like having a group outing or something,
but not something serious for work groups.

--
Joyce ^..^

To email me, remove the XXX from my user name.