![[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
(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.