Re: MBTI personality type | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Pastor Liz (pastorlizmgmail.com) | |
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT) |
> Especially for those who have been forced to do this sort of thing at > work, and have failed to game the metric to their boss's satisfaction. > Partly it also rests on having a good explanation of what you want to > do the test for, and how you're going to use it. Yes, but more than that I meant to emphasize that there is a significant population that does not believe in standardized tests as a way to "identify a personality". There is good research that can show that MBTI (or whichever test you've decided is the direction) doesn't really reliably predict anything. I personally like MBTI but the enneagram gives me the heebie jeevies. But the point is that if you want to welcome difference in your group, any discussion about "which personality you are" needs to leave room for people to decide "none", and have a valid voice disagreeing with the very process. I like Sharon's note about "watching" or being the audience. That too. Liz Mosaic Commons Berlin MA Won't you be our neigbhor? Homes still available! www.sawyerhill.org On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Moz <list [at] moz.geek.nz> wrote: >
- Re: MBTI personality type, (continued)
- Re: MBTI personality type Mark.speaks, October 3 2010
- Re: MBTI personality type lcamundsen, October 3 2010
- Re: MBTI personality type Moz, October 4 2010
- Re: MBTI personality type Naomi Anderegg, October 4 2010
- Re: MBTI personality type Pastor Liz, October 4 2010
- Re: MBTI personality type Sharon Villines, October 4 2010
- Re: personality type Mark.speaks, October 2 2010
- Re: personality type Alexander Robin A, October 3 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.