This current college course relies heavily on the ability to understand oneself, so as to understand others and increase in emotional intelligence.
Some back story:
I am not exceptionally well-versed in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator yet I have been aware of it for several years and taken various versions of 'assessments' from a number of online hosts to gather my own "type" as well as to rule out some bias and algorithm discrepancy that might be present in the testing. My results would only slightly vary. From what I understand (fueled by this historical snippet), a guy named Carl Jung developed the first section of this personality metric that included 3 categories. Later, a mother-daughter duo made some updates to the system and added a 4th category (Judging/Perceiving). It appears that a 5th category has been introduced by some, as used by the website 16Personalities. Even with all 5 criterion, I am not convinced that we have completed this system.
This current week in college we are instructed to use an instrument to evaluate ourselves to the MBTI through the Jungian lens, using the HumanMetrics testing platform. The extension of this assignment is to compare it with our previous introspective evaluation from last week, study and report on our "type," and also study and report on the polar opposite type. In the simplest form, this assignment is not too difficult, as it only requires a few points of criteria and a minimum of 1000 words.
Here's my beef:
I was skeptical about the way we are able to put people into boxes, with respect to their personality. This conjured so many red flags about "correlation vs. causation" and how the segregation into "types" effectively creates a, "you should behave/feel/think this way [x] because you are this way [x]" and it chaps my ass. I would be able to simply complete this assignment by taking the results from the first HumanMetrics test and moving on, but I wanted to rule out bias and my own variable mood/energy from day to day. I got the same results both times, but I felt like there were several points during the questioning where I wanted to caveat the answers I was giving, felt the answer only encompassed half of the truth, or worst felt they gave a specific example that I agreed with but included a specific variation that made me disagree.
It made me want to write a rebuttal. It made me think that the tendency to bottle people up doesn't allow for the fluidity that is the human element. I am clearly not fully-fleshing the issues I have with this topic yet, but I have fairly well decided that I am needing to amend the status quo.
Some back story:
I am not exceptionally well-versed in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator yet I have been aware of it for several years and taken various versions of 'assessments' from a number of online hosts to gather my own "type" as well as to rule out some bias and algorithm discrepancy that might be present in the testing. My results would only slightly vary. From what I understand (fueled by this historical snippet), a guy named Carl Jung developed the first section of this personality metric that included 3 categories. Later, a mother-daughter duo made some updates to the system and added a 4th category (Judging/Perceiving). It appears that a 5th category has been introduced by some, as used by the website 16Personalities. Even with all 5 criterion, I am not convinced that we have completed this system.
This current week in college we are instructed to use an instrument to evaluate ourselves to the MBTI through the Jungian lens, using the HumanMetrics testing platform. The extension of this assignment is to compare it with our previous introspective evaluation from last week, study and report on our "type," and also study and report on the polar opposite type. In the simplest form, this assignment is not too difficult, as it only requires a few points of criteria and a minimum of 1000 words.
Here's my beef:
I was skeptical about the way we are able to put people into boxes, with respect to their personality. This conjured so many red flags about "correlation vs. causation" and how the segregation into "types" effectively creates a, "you should behave/feel/think this way [x] because you are this way [x]" and it chaps my ass. I would be able to simply complete this assignment by taking the results from the first HumanMetrics test and moving on, but I wanted to rule out bias and my own variable mood/energy from day to day. I got the same results both times, but I felt like there were several points during the questioning where I wanted to caveat the answers I was giving, felt the answer only encompassed half of the truth, or worst felt they gave a specific example that I agreed with but included a specific variation that made me disagree.
It made me want to write a rebuttal. It made me think that the tendency to bottle people up doesn't allow for the fluidity that is the human element. I am clearly not fully-fleshing the issues I have with this topic yet, but I have fairly well decided that I am needing to amend the status quo.
Comments
Post a Comment