![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Personality in disorder
There's an article in this week's New Yorker on personality assessment, and it reminded me of some of the thought's I'd had while watching the "50 things" meme going around. One of the sets of five facts, if I recall correctly, were to be "about your core personality." Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if I even have one of those.
The problem came up last time I looked at the MBTI test*; I read through the questions and most of the time the only answers I had were "Yes and No," or "Sometimes." It's not that I have a poorly defined personality, or feel that I don't know who I am; it's just that my answers to most of the questions on the test depend on the context. For example, in many social contexts I hang back rather than push to the center of whatever's going on. But the career I've chosen also means that I spend time talking to a large audience--in that context, I not only demand to be the center of attention, but also enjoy it. Other answers depend on whether I'm answering with my teaching personality, my researcher personality or my fannish personality: all of these are "the real me" in some sense. Part of me likes to work on well-defined projects with regular assessment from others; another part of me wants to be left alone to play with a few big questions. I don't feel particularly fragmented or unstable; on the contrary, I think I have a very clear sense of who I am. I just can't answer most of the MBTI questions.
The New Yorker article had some interesting things to say about the origins of the MBTI test, which confirmed my suspicion that it was more or less claptrap. Don't get me wrong: I love personality tests. They feed a kind of self-centered urge to examine my own navel for clues that it is, in fact, the most interesting navel in the world.** And there's the nice sense of categorization, of membership in a group: "Oh," you can say, "You're an INTJ too? Obviously we're meant to be the very best of friends." It's a useful token in interpersonal relationships--a form of self-identification. So is saying "I'm a Dunnett fan," or "I adore crazy Uncle Arvin," or "I read poetry for pleasure"--and I wonder if those aren't more valid forms of self-identification. At least I know that all three statements are true. None of them, alas, have much to do with a core personality, whatever that may be.***
* The Myers-Briggs Type Index test--it's the thing that tells you if you're INTP or EsFJ or whatever, and also what that means.
** I'd love to be psychoanalyzed, for just that reason; luckily I lack the necessary money and possess the sense to know that it would be a waste of the analyst's time.
*** The article is Malcom Gladwell, "Personality Plus." The New Yorker, Sept. 20 2004, pp. 42-48. It doesn't seem to be available on line.
The problem came up last time I looked at the MBTI test*; I read through the questions and most of the time the only answers I had were "Yes and No," or "Sometimes." It's not that I have a poorly defined personality, or feel that I don't know who I am; it's just that my answers to most of the questions on the test depend on the context. For example, in many social contexts I hang back rather than push to the center of whatever's going on. But the career I've chosen also means that I spend time talking to a large audience--in that context, I not only demand to be the center of attention, but also enjoy it. Other answers depend on whether I'm answering with my teaching personality, my researcher personality or my fannish personality: all of these are "the real me" in some sense. Part of me likes to work on well-defined projects with regular assessment from others; another part of me wants to be left alone to play with a few big questions. I don't feel particularly fragmented or unstable; on the contrary, I think I have a very clear sense of who I am. I just can't answer most of the MBTI questions.
The New Yorker article had some interesting things to say about the origins of the MBTI test, which confirmed my suspicion that it was more or less claptrap. Don't get me wrong: I love personality tests. They feed a kind of self-centered urge to examine my own navel for clues that it is, in fact, the most interesting navel in the world.** And there's the nice sense of categorization, of membership in a group: "Oh," you can say, "You're an INTJ too? Obviously we're meant to be the very best of friends." It's a useful token in interpersonal relationships--a form of self-identification. So is saying "I'm a Dunnett fan," or "I adore crazy Uncle Arvin," or "I read poetry for pleasure"--and I wonder if those aren't more valid forms of self-identification. At least I know that all three statements are true. None of them, alas, have much to do with a core personality, whatever that may be.***
* The Myers-Briggs Type Index test--it's the thing that tells you if you're INTP or EsFJ or whatever, and also what that means.
** I'd love to be psychoanalyzed, for just that reason; luckily I lack the necessary money and possess the sense to know that it would be a waste of the analyst's time.
*** The article is Malcom Gladwell, "Personality Plus." The New Yorker, Sept. 20 2004, pp. 42-48. It doesn't seem to be available on line.
no subject
::world falls apart::
no subject
no subject
Which, as an introvert, I can completely see the reason why they did that (I mean, really, why go *talking* to people if you don't have to, especially extroverts who'll talk your ear off and never actually say any thing) but as a science type I pretty much have to give it a thumbs down.
Extremely kewl, though. *sorts navel lint collection*
- hossgal
no subject
But, you know, it's a fun parlor game.
no subject
I think that any "box" model of looking at people, whether it's Myers-Briggs or astrology or Chinese Year Of The [x] or New Age aura colours or whatever, can be useful as a piece of shorthand or an initial frame of reference. But it's just shorthand. It kind of worries me when people seem to think they have themselves figured out because they know now that they're an INTP Taurean Indigo child of the Year Of The Pig. It seems more like a cop-out than a tool to a more authentic self-understanding.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But what is this 50 Facts test you're talking about?
no subject
no subject
So it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about myself - or particularly illumine my interpersonal relationships - but it was kind of freaky to find out that it actually works sometimes. Others that night were not so sucessful. I think it's an interesting experiment, at least. But I agree, it doesn't really tell you anything profound or enlightening. (It was a bit of a shocker to learn that I'm not quite as inscrutable as I'd hoped. *g*) Other personality tests I've taken have been hilariously inaccurate - and even reading the "other" options, they've all pretty much been inaccurate for me on the whole, so it wasn't a matter of getting the "wrong one."
I vaguely remember that taking the Myers-Briggs test was...annoying. Because like you said, so much depends on the context. I think perhaps that's why nearly the same questions are repeated over and over again, which gets old faster than milk left out on the counter in July.
no subject
I usually feel that I fit the INTJ or INTP descriptions pretty well--but I bet if I took it right after lecturing, rather than when I was onthe internet, I'd come out different. And I have my doubts about the way the test is used as pop currency, if you see what I mean.
no subject
Yeah, I do. While my "results" may mean something to me, they don't necessarily tell you anything about other people, which is what everyone assumes. I mean, one of my most Extrovert friends often prefers to stay at home and play computer games. So.
no subject
(Personality disorders are called personality disorders because they persist over the lifetime; I'm not 100% convinced that the descriptions of narcissism are as evidence-based as the behavior criteria, but it's a powerful thing to point to a person and say "Narcissist.")
The funny part is the Five Factors model of personality is not actually all that different from MBTI -- except that Five Factors is not designed to give people a label, just scores on five different scales. (I'm not sure how useful it is as a tool, but at least it's harder to mis-use.)
Once, on an internet personality quiz, I was told I was a Secret Mastermind, like Cobra Commander or the evil hand guy on Inspector Gadget. I think that is about the level on which one should appreciate your standard personality-label test.
no subject
I didn't mean to disparage the entire field, although I do think that the MBTI test is often used in a superficial fashion. And I find it a little disturbing that the test expects me to react to the same question in the same way, with no reference to context. That whole idea strikes me as not quite right. Really, the last time I looked at the test I couldn't answer many of the questions, and that was a little disturbing.
no subject
And this is coming from someone whose Personality seminar was her favorite part of her psychology degree! (But probably only because the professor never advocated a theroy, merely took us through about 14 different approaches to personality throughout the seminar without ever expressing a single prefence. I am an omnibus.)
.m