InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comFri, 24 May 2013 10:47:22 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxBy the way, if anyone is still interested: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/world/myersbriggs-test-not-all-psychologists-type-20121217-2bigg.html[/url]Per this article:[quote]Even Katharine Downing Myers concedes that "psychologists had no use for the indicator; they felt that Jung was a crazy mystic".[/quote]In other words, yeah, it's not scientific and was never intended to be so.Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:14:12 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (12/11/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/11/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]jbnv (12/11/2012)[/b][hr]And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination.[/quote]I don't see how my comment has "insulted people who have suffered real employment discrimination". In fact, I see it as quite the opposite if employers use such "tests" for any such evaluation.[/quote]And I agree with you that such assessments are not appropriate for hiring. But you didn't stop there. You called for personality tests to be banned outright. And personality assessment of any sort is hardly among the most egregious form of employment discrimination out there.[/quote]Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pretty clearly lays out how personality tests may be used in employment screening.Banning personality tests from employment screening would pretty much eliminate the whole interview process. Interviewing is a form of personality testing, just (usually) less formal and less codified than the written forms of personality testing.My main action in interviewing is a formal, verbal, "personality test". Hasn't failed me in 25 years of use. Thousands of others use the same testing technique, with similar results. Doesn't require any paperwork, and would look like a conversation to an untrained observer, but it's rigorous, formal, follows an exact pattern, and has adequate accuracy for hiring purposes.Ban "personality tests in hiring", and take that tool away from people like me, and I guarantee that the lawsuits protesting the ban will win when it hits the Supreme Court.(Please keep in mind, there are certain tests that I consider valid, and others I consider worse than a bad joke. When I make negative comments about some of the tests, don't take that as a general "all tests are bad" statement. I realized I hadn't been clear about that in some of my prior posts, so thought I should mention it here. Primarily, DISC and Myers-Briggs are useless, per my research. Same for Psychogeometrics - useless garbage. I've never yet found an instance where any of those resulted in any sort of verifiable, positive return-on-investment for companies that have used them.)Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:42:21 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/11/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]jbnv (12/11/2012)[/b][hr]And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination.[/quote]I don't see how my comment has "insulted people who have suffered real employment discrimination". In fact, I see it as quite the opposite if employers use such "tests" for any such evaluation.[/quote]And I agree with you that such assessments are not appropriate for hiring. But you didn't stop there. You called for personality tests to be banned outright. And personality assessment of any sort is hardly among the most egregious form of employment discrimination out there.Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:25:11 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (12/11/2012)[/b][hr]And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination.[/quote]I don't see how my comment has "insulted people who have suffered real employment discrimination". In fact, I see it as quite the opposite if employers use such "tests" for any such evaluation.Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:30:46 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxHiring someone because they got certain letters from a personality test is wrong. Hiring someone because he's the boss's nephew even though he is completely unqualified is also wrong. Both happen in the real world. That doesn't invalidate the personality test entirely. Nor does it mean that the personality test should not be used to assess employees who are already on the payroll and make better use of their particular aptitudes. And to say that assessing someone's personality is "discrimination" and should be outlawed is an insult both to the researchers who developed these assessments and people who have suffered real employment discrimination. Let's not also confuse the assessment scales with the tests that are used to measure people against them. Yes, self-assessment questionaires have many scientific flaws. They are not appropriate for making absolute, permanent assessments, but do serve as a good starting point for further and [i]ongoing[/i] reflection. Let's condemn the tests if we have to, but not the assessment scales, the research that went into them, and the real benefit that they provide to humanity.davoscollective, thank you for referring this to your consultant and sharing her comments.Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:46:59 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]davoscollective (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]I previously provided a link to a website I worked on many years ago containing rough version of the test. The website belongs to a business consultancy, that uses the real paid version of the Myers-Briggs test as part of team building programmes that it runs mainly for Law firms. It's not used to discriminate, it's used to help the team members to get along with each other and create a friendlier work environment which in turn helps them work more efficiently, ultimately benefitting the business. It's a useful instigator for a negotiation and mediation process, especially where there is conflict within a team.This is a basic run-down of how it's used. 1) You tell it about yourself and it gives you a summary. 2) You then reflect on your summary and on the summary of your colleagues.3) As a team you then consider if your interactions with each other are positive and reflect on how you might work together in a more positive way without pushing each others buttons or being negative and cynical. (I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)4) The learning is then applied through workshops - adults learn best by doing. As much as I personally dislike role-playing workshops, I can admit that they work by providing a visceral experience. Experience is what makes us mature, even artificial experiences like role-plays.It's easy for us to dismiss this as useless fluff because we are hard-headed and know better and won't be told. We're all about hard numbers and facts, not airy fairy stuff like relationships and emotions. What could we possibly learn about ourselves that we don't already know?My inclination is the same, I come from a hard science background (chemistry). But I can appreciate other people's points of view and have chosen to remove the blinkers and see what I can learn.To those people who have closed their mind to the possible benefits of self-reflection I would say that as humans we can't shut off the emotional side like Spock. We need a bit of Bones for Balance.[/quote]Definitely true that any situation involving human beings (or most animals for that matter) involves emotional aspects. The single biggest barrier to productivity is human emotion and reaction, after all, as any good manager knows.The problem with the tests is not that they're touchy-feely or anything like that. The problem is that they are mathematically and scientifically and logically flawed, and don't actually measure what they are intended to measure.I've actually done extensive research in the area.Here are some of the flaws:1. Questions that are presented as binary situations, which actually aren't. (Logic flaw)2. Most of the questions are simply asserted ego-reflection; meaning, they say what the test-taker wants to believe, not what objective observation would actually support. Many, many people will overestimate abilities they aren't actually as good at as they think they are, and the same applies to basic personality traits.3. They rely on suggestability for their test-validation. E.g.: "The test says this person is bad at communicating, doesn't like other people, and has very good detail-focus. When told this, the person agreed. Thus, the test worked." That's how they validate the tests, but it's not actually a logical conclusion that "the test worked", because it's not a scientifically valid control/variable environment.4. They treat ratios as absolute values and that all human beings have a fixed amount of total personality that can be shared around between these traits. E.g.: I usually test out as being incredibly good at communicating, and not much good for anything else at all. Per many of these tests, I have no technical/detail/mathematical aptitude at all. But, at the same time, I have an IQ that's somewhere between 150 and 225, depending on which test I take. What the personality test is actually finding is that communication is stronger than analytical/conceptual, or (Myers-Briggs) that Extraversion is higher than Intraversion, but then it assumes that the lower trait is thus below human norm. That's a severe mathematical flaw as well as complete logical nonsense.5. Precision severely excedes accuracy on these tests. This includes IQ tests as well as personality tests. 6. The baselines on the tests were hypothesized but never validated.If you research the history and genesis of the tests, and how they are validated, you'll find that the flaws go even deeper than that, and are fundamental to the whole testing paradigm and the basic theories behind the whole thing. It's really interesting research.So, my problem isn't with people finding out more about themselves, or about their teammates. Those are good things. My problem with these tests is that they promise what they cannot deliver. They don't have the scientific or mathematical validity to deliver it.Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:33:03 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[b]I showed this thread to the Business Consultant I mentioned and these are her comments. I've posted them here with permission. Note this is an accredited expert in the field, not my opinions. I added the bits in bold.[/b]• It is only supposed to be administered by an accredited person - there is a lot to be explained including the frame of mind to be applied to responses• The theory of MBTI teaches that no-one can tell you what box you belong in. You don't belong in a box - each of us is an unique individual and it is for each of us to decide how insightful and accurate we find the instrument to be• There are 16 basic types however within each pair of characteristics there are significant gradations which accounts for really significant differences in how individuals present• For those who find it useful, a strength is how it helps us to understand how others experience their interaction with us. In particular, there is helpful learning about the difference between intention (what we intended to convey) and reception (how the other person experiences our communication) • it is just one more piece of data and was never intended as a standalone tool to capture everything about an individual[b]With regard to people's experiences with the test:[/b]Doesn't it highlight:• how badly the instrument is explained before it is administered• how badly the instrument is debriefed (and most of these people have never had a personal debrief)• the misuse of the instrument e.g in recruiting. As part of accreditation we have to promise that we won't use it for recruitment because it is too manipulable. It's real value is in personal, self-knowingMon, 10 Dec 2012 23:36:43 GMTdavoscollectivehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote]Tell me why someone needs to do #1 and #2 above to successfully accomplish #3 especially when #1 is as loosely interpretive as a horoscope (IMHO... yeah... I took it in with open arms and thought the profile rating system was as about as effective).[/quote]Horoscopes are based on your birthday corresponding with some arbitrary positioning of the stars some thousand years ago - clearly nonsense. Myers-Briggs is based on a comprehensive set of questions stemming from Jungian Psychology that are balanced to avoid acquiescence bias and are answered entirely by you. It is subjective yes, but not arbitrary. The language used in the descriptions, like all language, can be ambiguous so I agree it's important to define your terminology. The language, however, is directly related to the input - your answers to the questions. Simply asking the questions is enough to trigger you to think about the answers. Perhaps you do that without prompting but most people aren't so self-aware. I can think of a few managers I've worked with who would benefit from a good dose of self-awareness. Admittedly I would too. [quote](I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)[/quote] I apologise for that comment, I do hope people don't enjoy that. You're right, I did need to reflect on that. I have a lot of learning to do. [quote] Thoughtful interaction with and by your fellow employees is much more effective in causing self reflection.[/quote]I totally agree. Unfortunately conflict arises from the lack of this positive behaviour, hence the usefulness of an intervention. If you do those things naturally and your team members already understand each other, have effective interactions and you are master of your own behaviour then there is little to gain. I think that applies to very few people.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:32:10 GMTdavoscollectivehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]davoscollective (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]This is a basic run-down of how it's used. 1) You tell it about yourself and it gives you a summary. 2) You then reflect on your summary and on the summary of your colleagues.3) As a team you then consider if your interactions with each other are positive and reflect on how you might work together in a more positive way without pushing each others buttons or being negative and cynical. [/quote]Tell me why someone needs to do #1 and #2 above to successfully accomplish #3 especially when #1 is as loosely interpretive as a horoscope (IMHO... yeah... I took it in with open arms and thought the profile rating system was as about as effective).[quote](I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)[/quote]And I suspect that people who say such things should probably do a little more self reflection. Why does someone need to do #1 and #2 to accomplish #3. Thoughtful interaction with and by your fellow employees is much more effective in causing self reflection.[quote]To those people who have closed their mind to the possible benefits of self-reflection I would say that as humans we can't shut off the emotional side like Spock. We need a bit of Bones for Balance.[/quote]You mistake the method for the madness. Not wanting to participate in #1 and #2 has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not self-reflection is either necessary or possible and it sure doesn't have anything to do with a closed mind for some of us. We just don't believe in the method.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:07:17 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxI previously provided a link to a website I worked on many years ago containing rough version of the test. The website belongs to a business consultancy, that uses the real paid version of the Myers-Briggs test as part of team building programmes that it runs mainly for Law firms. It's not used to discriminate, it's used to help the team members to get along with each other and create a friendlier work environment which in turn helps them work more efficiently, ultimately benefitting the business. It's a useful instigator for a negotiation and mediation process, especially where there is conflict within a team.This is a basic run-down of how it's used. 1) You tell it about yourself and it gives you a summary. 2) You then reflect on your summary and on the summary of your colleagues.3) As a team you then consider if your interactions with each other are positive and reflect on how you might work together in a more positive way without pushing each others buttons or being negative and cynical. (I suspect some people enjoy being negative and cynical so that's where it probably falls apart for them. If you don't make an effort then that's your issue.)4) The learning is then applied through workshops - adults learn best by doing. As much as I personally dislike role-playing workshops, I can admit that they work by providing a visceral experience. Experience is what makes us mature, even artificial experiences like role-plays.It's easy for us to dismiss this as useless fluff because we are hard-headed and know better and won't be told. We're all about hard numbers and facts, not airy fairy stuff like relationships and emotions. What could we possibly learn about ourselves that we don't already know?My inclination is the same, I come from a hard science background (chemistry). But I can appreciate other people's points of view and have chosen to remove the blinkers and see what I can learn.To those people who have closed their mind to the possible benefits of self-reflection I would say that as humans we can't shut off the emotional side like Spock. We need a bit of Bones for Balance.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:39:50 GMTdavoscollectivehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]Ok... how are such profile tests actually useful, then?[/quote]MB in particular provides a somewhat-objective scale for assessing and expressing personality traits, particularly for new hires who haven't really enough work to reveal their personalities. The wise organization would consider these traits in assigning roles to personnel. For example, I'd recommend my extroverts for training and customer service and send them to networking events. [/quote]So they're using it pretty much as I said and like you said they're not. I can only hope the people that support these "tests" are someday rejected for a potential positition so they'll begin to truly understand why I say that personality profiling by such tests should be outlawed as a form of illegal discrimination.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:13:37 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]Ok... how are such profile tests actually useful, then?[/quote]MB in particular provides a somewhat-objective scale for assessing and expressing personality traits, particularly for new hires who haven't really enough work to reveal their personalities. The wise organization would consider these traits in assigning roles to personnel. For example, I'd recommend my extroverts for training and customer service and send them to networking events. [quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]jbnv (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.[/quote]Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.[/quote]Based on my reading I'd like to second this notion. While I can disagree with the actual test in a fairly nonconsequential way, I can understand the premise. However, I'm pretty sure that everyone who's actually familiar with the topic understands it wasn't meant to be a test for employment. Obviously some HR departments aren't going to bother understanding this point, but I think we here in this thread can at least agree that its not an employment test. HR departments are going to be either competent, not competent, or any value in between.[/quote]Remember that these are the same HR departments that probably don't understand the technical requirements that we face, particularly for those companies whose primary business isn't software or IT. I wouldn't trust an HR department to properly assess me based on my MB result than I would trust one that doesn't know whether or not my experience with databases qualifies me for a SLQ Server DBA position.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:48:32 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.[/quote]Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.[/quote]Based on my reading I'd like to second this notion. While I can disagree with the actual test in a fairly nonconsequential way, I can understand the premise. However, I'm pretty sure that everyone who's actually familiar with the topic understands it wasn't meant to be a test for employment. Obviously some HR departments aren't going to bother understanding this point, but I think we here in this thread can at least agree that its not an employment test. HR departments are going to be either competent, not competent, or any value in between.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:29:02 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.[/quote]Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.[/quote]Ok... how are such profile tests actually useful, then?Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:21:57 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr]What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB ... do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.[/quote]Again, that's not the point of the Myers-Briggs personality scale. If someone is using it in that fashion, then they should be stopped. That doesn't destroy or diminish the usefulness of the profile.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:01:05 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote]The problem is that companies ARE, in fact, using them to discriminate.[/quote]And companies discriminate against people who don't know certain programming languages. That's part of doing business: choosing the right people for the job.[/quote]What I'm suggesting is that tests such as MB are not accurate and do little in determining if someone will go postal or be an excellent employee.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:54:32 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/10/2012)[/b][hr][quote]The problem is that companies ARE, in fact, using them to discriminate.[/quote]And companies discriminate against people who don't know certain programming languages. That's part of doing business: choosing the right people for the job.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:02:03 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]davoscollective (12/9/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)[/b][hr]Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! ;-)[/quote]I was being a bit flippant when I said DBA's are OCD, I think perhaps "perfectionist" is a better description. Real OCD is a terrible debilatating disease that I wouldn't wish on anyone. To your other points, I agree that if these tools are abused and used to discriminate then that is evil. The idea is not to do that, but use them as an opportunity to reflect and examine your own behaviour. I think you know that, so I apologise if that sounds preachy. As for Gsquared's comments, I think there's a lot of anger there and I hope you can work through that. My grandfather used to say to me that we are better served being skeptical than being cynical, because cynicism leads to a closed mind.[/quote]Nah. Anger is for when you're so confused you just have to stop everything.As mentioned, we're not using the same language. Same words, yes. Same language, no.Honestly, I find the whole thing (personality tests that don't do anything useful, et al) immensely amusing. Much better than TV sitcoms for hours of comedy.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:41:25 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]davoscollective (12/9/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)[/b][hr]Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! ;-)[/quote]I was being a bit flippant when I said DBA's are OCD, I think perhaps "perfectionist" is a better description. Real OCD is a terrible debilatating disease that I wouldn't wish on anyone. [/quote]Agreed.[quote]To your other points, I agree that if these tools are abused and used to discriminate then that is evil. The idea is not to do that, but use them as an opportunity to reflect and examine your own behaviour. I think you know that, so I apologise if that sounds preachy. [/quote]The problem is that companies ARE, in fact, using them to discriminate.[quote]As for Gsquared's comments, I think there's a lot of anger there and I hope you can work through that. My grandfather used to say to me that we are better served being skeptical than being cynical, because cynicism leads to a closed mind.[/quote]Actually and considering that companies actually are using such things to discriminate, I don't blame him a bit.Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:33:35 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)[/b][hr]Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! ;-)[/quote]I was being a bit flippant when I said DBA's are OCD, I think perhaps "perfectionist" is a better description. Real OCD is a terrible debilatating disease that I wouldn't wish on anyone. To your other points, I agree that if these tools are abused and used to discriminate then that is evil. The idea is not to do that, but use them as an opportunity to reflect and examine your own behaviour. I think you know that, so I apologise if that sounds preachy. As for Gsquared's comments, I think there's a lot of anger there and I hope you can work through that. My grandfather used to say to me that we are better served being skeptical than being cynical, because cynicism leads to a closed mind.Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:41:59 GMTdavoscollectivehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)[/b][hr]In fact, I believe that tests like MB ... won't actually detect whether or not someone will go postal or not. Neither will it identify if someone will do a good job or not.[/quote]And that's not the point of the MB scale. It's a personality assessment, not a skills assessment or psychological profile. It shouldn't surprise anyone that DBAs and developers have similar personalities. In fact, your comment about OCD affirms this.As for your comment about personality assessments being an "invasion of privacy," I see nothing of the sort. It's just explaining what everyone is going to see anyway.[quote][b]Jeff Moden (12/7/2012)[/b][hr]This all (in particular, MB) sounds like the same bad idea that I saw in a movie once. If you didn't have the right type of DNA, you weren't allowed to do certain jobs no matter what your skill set or abilites were. [/quote]Seriously?? Did you really just equate personality assessment with a genetic caste system?Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:27:33 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxThis all (in particular, MB) sounds like the same bad idea that I saw in a movie once. If you didn't have the right type of DNA, you weren't allowed to do certain jobs no matter what your skill set or abilites were. In fact, I believe that tests like MB are actually a form of privacy invasion and won't actually detect whether or not someone will go postal or not. Neither will it identify if someone will do a good job or not.Then, there are terms like "OCD" and, as someone pointed out on this thread, OCDs make good DBAs. So why then is it still labeled as a "Disorder"? It should be renamed to OCA... Obsesive Compulsive Advantage! ;-)Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:23:19 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]DavidL (12/7/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]GSquared (12/7/2012)[/b]To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.[/quote]Come, come, GSquared. Don't be patronizing....On a more serious note, my comments were only tangentially about Myers-Briggs and its validity as a descriptor of people. They were more about whether your [u]test of the Myers-Briggs test[/u] was well designed, and I think it was not. I think your null hypothesis was not well formed, nor the alternative hypothesis, nor the test devised to test it, nor the conclusion you reached.Here is another example of what seems to me shoddy thinking:[quote][b]GSquared (12/7/2012)[/b]To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.[/quote]This is an assertion that is presented as a conclusion, which you’ve invited me to agree with (or not). That is upside down and backwards. Deconstructed, I think it should have been stated something like:Some people need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).Some people do not need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will work on those who need it.The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will not work on those who do not need it.I can see a few sticky points here. For example, what does it mean to ‘need’ Myers-Briggs (or tests like it)? How do we determine if someone needs it? By the fact that Myers-Briggs ‘works’ for them? How do we determine that a person does not need Myers-Briggs? Etc.[/quote]Let's cut to the chase. We're not talking the same language as each other. You'll never understand the points I was making. It's as simple as that.Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:58:52 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Nadrek (12/5/2012)[/b][hr]The Meyers-Briggs 16 "type" approach is mirrored by David Keirsey in his book "Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence", which is an excellent guide and very reasonably priced (MSRP of $20 in paperback).[/quote]I second. I discovered the Meyers-Briggs scale about 14 years ago and purchased Keirsey's book. I still refer to it from time to time. It's an excellent book, bringing this abstract concept of personality types into the concrete and giving practical applications.As for my type, I have come up INTJ many times through the years, but I have concluded that I am more of an INTP. I'm a developer, not a DBA. I thrive on the creative aspects of software and database development, but I have little patience for the managerial and bureaucratic realities of database systems. (And I am grateful for those of you who do!) I don't have a problem with using personality assessments in the workplace; in fact, I applaud them. However, management must be willing to actually use the findings. Otherwise, why go to the expense? My previous employer made a big push with Gallup's "Strengths" assessment. Yet I fail to see how we actually used it, particularly in the situation that led to them firing me.Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:33:54 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (12/7/2012)[/b]To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.[/quote]Come, come, GSquared. Don't be patronizing....On a more serious note, my comments were only tangentially about Myers-Briggs and its validity as a descriptor of people. They were more about whether your [u]test of the Myers-Briggs test[/u] was well designed, and I think it was not. I think your null hypothesis was not well formed, nor the alternative hypothesis, nor the test devised to test it, nor the conclusion you reached.Here is another example of what seems to me shoddy thinking:[quote][b]GSquared (12/7/2012)[/b]To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.[/quote]This is an assertion that is presented as a conclusion, which you’ve invited me to agree with (or not). That is upside down and backwards. Deconstructed, I think it should have been stated something like:Some people need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).Some people do not need Myers-Briggs (or similar tests).The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will work on those who need it.The Myers-Briggs (or similar tests?) will not work on those who do not need it.I can see a few sticky points here. For example, what does it mean to ‘need’ Myers-Briggs (or tests like it)? How do we determine if someone needs it? By the fact that Myers-Briggs ‘works’ for them? How do we determine that a person does not need Myers-Briggs? Etc.Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:51:24 GMTDavidLhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxEarly to middle of the workweek I'm INTP, friday afternoon I'm ESFJ.Fri, 07 Dec 2012 07:44:04 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]DavidL (12/5/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]GSquared (12/5/2012)[/b][hr]I once saw a comic (newpaper comics page type thing), titled "Before Astrology was a Science". Had a horoscope on it that went like this:Taurus: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.Pisces: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.Gemini: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.Ares: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.and so on.Myers-Briggs comes largely under that heading in my experience. Same for DISC. There's just enough truth and just enough flattery in most "personality types", and they're general enough, that most people will go, "Yeah, that's so me!"The tests claim extremely high levels of accuracy. I see it more as "a sawed off shotgun in a crowded elevator" kind of situation.I've actually tested the DISC analysis for accuracy. The whole company I worked for a few years back took the tests. Afterwards, I went around to most of the people who'd taken it, and picked a random personality out of the back of the scoring book, and told each person, "Turns out there was a mistake in scoring your DISC test. This is what the score should have been." Random personality description. Every single one of them read "their correct personality", and responded that, "You're right. That's even more accurate. Thanks." or words to that effect. Not ONE person disagreed with "their correct score", despite totally random choices.Myers-Briggs works the same way. It will pick up a few things, like very strong crowd avoidance, but outside of extreme cases, it's just "You will interpret vague generalities about human behavior as applying specifically to you".[/quote]I don't know anything about DISC, so I can't comment on that.However I do have some experience with myers-briggs, and as you imply that your 'validity test' would also pierce this balloon, consider this:If we were to run your test with 100 people, it would mean that 93 would be told that at least one of their introvert/extrovert, thinking/feeling etc. tendencies was in fact wrong. 7 of those 100 (if you randomly select a type from the bag of 15 -- 1 fewer than the total) would be told that they were in fact wrong in [u]all four areas[/u]; 27 in three areas, another 27 (note rounding errors) in one area and 40 in two areas. I don't see people being that fundamentally wrong about themselves.Call me a skeptic, but I do not think you were in fact testing the validity of the test. I think it more likely your 'experiment' points to something about how people respond when faced with what they perceive to be an outside authority contradicting their opinion. It also likely involves suggestibility, and probably a host of other very complex psychological/emotional/cultural issues. [/quote]Of course it tests those thing.But consider this:Myers-Briggs question (a real one): Do you prefer working with large groups over smaller meetings?This is a yes/no (binary) question. Can you see the flaw in it? The logic flaw is HUGE. Gaping! You could sail a carrier battle group through it with room to spare.Many of the rest of the questions have similar, or worse, flaws in them. The fact that the test is a test and mainly gathers data about asserted ego-reflection as opposed to any objective observation, is the primary flaw, of course, but even ignoring that, it's still rife with questions that don't actually gather the data they are intended to gather.Yes, I've studied the mechanical aspects of it, from a scientific and mathematical standpoint.And, as for considering the test valid, think on this: You brought up that people will often (almost always) accept "pronouncements from authority" as factual, valid, and accepted, without challenge. Have you considered what that says about the test itself? Honestly, that's my main point here. You agree with my point completely, whether you realize it or not.To put it more simply, the test is only valid on people who don't need it. See if you can figure out why.Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:42:01 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (12/6/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]davoscollective (12/6/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (12/6/2012)[/b][hr]6. Do you prefer to work(a) to deadlines(b) just "whenever" Heh something tells me that answering b) would tend to classify me as INJ-UNEMPLOYED.[/quote]The idea is to answer based on preference, not on what you've learned how to do. Obviously we all have to work to deadlines, but if there were no deadlines in place would you prefer that? Many people like structure and order in their life, whilst others put up with that because they have to. I'm in the latter category.[/quote]Well sure, honestly, I prefer a) as compared to b). heck, I'd say the difference between the two experiences can be every bit as contrasting as comparing the experience of receiving a paycheck against not receiving a paycheck. For that matter, everytime I've attempted to dabble in b) I have been utterly disappointed.Or maybe you're saying that preferences can't be learned? That Pavlov's dog was born to drool in response to the ringing bell? Or maybe these preferences are instilled in childhood? The fact that you are actually describing preferences as independent of our learning and experiences is pretty interesting in itself![quote]Most people think that their way of thinking is the only right way and find it hard to understand how anyone could think any differently to themselves.[/quote]Yes but it could be that some of those folks are sadly mistaken.[/quote]Haha yes I am directly saying that most of those people are sadly mistaken, it wasn't meant to be a suggestion! Part of the learning here is to accept other people's opinions as being valid to them, even if they make no sense to you. I definitely think that your preferences can change over time, but that is quite different from "learning preferences". The Myers-Briggs test is also known as the "Behavioral Preferences Questionnaire". It, and the Jungian psychology upon which it is based, implies a distinct difference between preference and learned behaviour. I have certainly learned to behave in a way that maintains my employment. On the other hand, I haven't learned new preferences, rather I have shoe-horned my behaviour to suit other people. I accept that for practical reasons we can't really work efficiently as a team without some structure, but there are plenty of bottom up self organising systems out there that contradict that philosophy. To learn a preference is not really a phrase that makes sense. You might change your preferences based on experiences and consequences of your prior preferences, but the word "preference" is all about you. What do you like and what is it that suits you? I don't think the Pavlov connection is relevant here, it's not an argument about nurture vs nature, rather its an argument about what you want vs what is expected of you. Don't answer the questionnaire in the latter mindset because it will not be a true reflection of yourself.Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:24:39 GMTdavoscollectivehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]davoscollective (12/6/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (12/6/2012)[/b][hr]6. Do you prefer to work(a) to deadlines(b) just "whenever" Heh something tells me that answering b) would tend to classify me as INJ-UNEMPLOYED.[/quote]The idea is to answer based on preference, not on what you've learned how to do. Obviously we all have to work to deadlines, but if there were no deadlines in place would you prefer that? Many people like structure and order in their life, whilst others put up with that because they have to. I'm in the latter category.[/quote]Well sure, honestly, I prefer a) as compared to b). heck, I'd say the difference between the two experiences can be every bit as contrasting as comparing the experience of receiving a paycheck against not receiving a paycheck. For that matter, everytime I've attempted to dabble in b) I have been utterly disappointed.Or maybe you're saying that preferences can't be learned? That Pavlov's dog was born to drool in response to the ringing bell? Or maybe these preferences are instilled in childhood? The fact that you are actually describing preferences as independent of our learning and experiences is pretty interesting in itself![quote]Most people think that their way of thinking is the only right way and find it hard to understand how anyone could think any differently to themselves.[/quote]Yes but it could be that some of those folks are sadly mistaken.Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:43:25 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (12/6/2012)[/b][hr]6. Do you prefer to work(a) to deadlines(b) just "whenever" Heh something tells me that answering b) would tend to classify me as INJ-UNEMPLOYED.[/quote]The idea is to answer based on preference, not on what you've learned how to do. Obviously we all have to work to deadlines, but if there were no deadlines in place would you prefer that? Many people like structure and order in their life, whilst others put up with that because they have to. I'm in the latter category.Most people think that their way of thinking is the only right way and find it hard to understand how anyone could think any differently to themselves.Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:57:40 GMTdavoscollectivehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx6. Do you prefer to work(a) to deadlines(b) just "whenever" Heh something tells me that answering b) would tend to classify me as INJ-UNEMPLOYED.Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:53:49 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxlol, No I don't work there, and have choose to find a different place to work myself after years of this.Myself, I hit the INFP, which seems to be in the minority in the developer side of things.Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:12:36 GMTDavid Lesterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]David Lester (12/6/2012)[/b][hr]Ie, a group which focuses on the get it done, off the desk, and checked off, idea of "we are doing good" which has no other counter views find themselves quickly heading toward endless mini-patches, and supporting roles. Building (without intervention) into something unmanageable with remarkable speed. Yet, if that same group had a few other views or problem solving types in it, there is the chance for someone to say, "Hey wait, is this not the 25th time we have added a "quick fix" to this thing? Maybe we should actually redesign it's inner workings to actually handle these things in the first place?"[/quote]Do you work at my employer?Seriously, that sounds an awful lot like how the programmers here work (closely followed by the "it's a problem with the computer" solution)If I recall, I took one of the online MB tests, and I think I was an INTJ. Now I want to re-check...Yep, INTJ based on a 70-odd question quiz...Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:49:23 GMTjasona.workhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxThe main difficulty I am seeing (and directly impacting my job) is people neglect to use these sorts of tools as a way to relate to others. The secondary one, becomes when someone in management comes to the conclusion that there is a "correct" personality for their staff. A staff made uniform of personality, problem solving style and interests creates a false sense of "our work is excellent". It is excellent, as long as it is not looked at with a different perception, or when looking outside of the box created by a group of very similar perceptions and roles. Ie, a group which focuses on the get it done, off the desk, and checked off, idea of "we are doing good" which has no other counter views find themselves quickly heading toward endless mini-patches, and supporting roles. Building (without intervention) into something unmanageable with remarkable speed. Yet, if that same group had a few other views or problem solving types in it, there is the chance for someone to say, "Hey wait, is this not the 25th time we have added a "quick fix" to this thing? Maybe we should actually redesign it's inner workings to actually handle these things in the first place?"Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:12:36 GMTDavid Lesterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxHmm, another INTJ here. I recall that I was the only one in my company (not development oriented) when we did the tests. Where do they all come from?I'd agree not being a 9 to 5 type probably means you a) are being taken advantage of b) are a bit slow or don't plan adequatelyc) are too keenAny ways that would not be the way to get promotion from me ;-)Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:51:23 GMTcall.copsehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxYears ago I set up a questionaire on this website for anyone who wants to take the Myers-Briggs test. Note that for a more accurate result you should pay for the official test but this is good enough.See the links on the left, there's also good descriptions of the types. [url=http://strategicaction.com.au/UNSWUnder.html]http://strategicaction.com.au/UNSWUnder.html[/url]I find that these tests are essentially mirrors. You tell it what you think and it summarises it back at you. It's not the same as horoscopes which are clearly bogus, it's merely reflection on yourself which is always a valuable excercise (or 360 reflection from your colleagues which is also useful).As for most people here being INTJ, most DBA's I've worked with are exactly this type. I think it goes hand in hand with pedantic OCD tendencies, which is a good thing when you are working with data accuracy. I'm INTP though, which is not as suited to daily DBA tasks. The difference between J and P (the last pair) is amusing. Basically P is late all the time and a day dreamer pondering decisions, where J is planned, punctual and decisive - even if the decision is wrong! [b]INTJ[/b]independentlogicalcriticaloriginalsystems-mindedfirmvisionarytheoreticaldemandingprivateglobalautonomous[b]INTP[/b]logicalscepticalcognitivedetachedtheoreticalreservedpreciseindependentspeculativeoriginalautonomousself-sufficient Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:45:43 GMTdavoscollectivehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspxThe Meyers-Briggs 16 "type" approach is mirrored by David Keirsey in his book "Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence", which is an excellent guide and very reasonably priced (MSRP of $20 in paperback). There's a questionnaire in the back to help determine type; it's nowhere near as good as the long form Meyers-Briggs, but it's still fairly reasonable at about 70 questions, as I recall.From memory, INTJ is often correlated with contingency planning, which may be related to why so many of us are showing up in that category. If everything is fine, I'll read SSC. If this happens, that, unless the other, in which case .... drop unnecessary... rebuild... indexes... backups.... restore.... failover... offsite.... tape library.... DBCC CHECKDB... update resume.Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:24:12 GMTNadrekhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (12/5/2012)[/b][hr]I once saw a comic (newpaper comics page type thing), titled "Before Astrology was a Science". Had a horoscope on it that went like this:Taurus: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.Pisces: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.Gemini: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.Ares: You will interpret vague generalities about life and work as applying specifically to you.and so on.Myers-Briggs comes largely under that heading in my experience. Same for DISC. There's just enough truth and just enough flattery in most "personality types", and they're general enough, that most people will go, "Yeah, that's so me!"The tests claim extremely high levels of accuracy. I see it more as "a sawed off shotgun in a crowded elevator" kind of situation.I've actually tested the DISC analysis for accuracy. The whole company I worked for a few years back took the tests. Afterwards, I went around to most of the people who'd taken it, and picked a random personality out of the back of the scoring book, and told each person, "Turns out there was a mistake in scoring your DISC test. This is what the score should have been." Random personality description. Every single one of them read "their correct personality", and responded that, "You're right. That's even more accurate. Thanks." or words to that effect. Not ONE person disagreed with "their correct score", despite totally random choices.Myers-Briggs works the same way. It will pick up a few things, like very strong crowd avoidance, but outside of extreme cases, it's just "You will interpret vague generalities about human behavior as applying specifically to you".[/quote]I don't know anything about DISC, so I can't comment on that.However I do have some experience with myers-briggs, and as you imply that your 'validity test' would also pierce this balloon, consider this:If we were to run your test with 100 people, it would mean that 93 would be told that at least one of their introvert/extrovert, thinking/feeling etc. tendencies was in fact wrong. 7 of those 100 (if you randomly select a type from the bag of 15 -- 1 fewer than the total) would be told that they were in fact wrong in [u]all four areas[/u]; 27 in three areas, another 27 (note rounding errors) in one area and 40 in two areas. I don't see people being that fundamentally wrong about themselves.Call me a skeptic, but I do not think you were in fact testing the validity of the test. I think it more likely your 'experiment' points to something about how people respond when faced with what they perceive to be an outside authority contradicting their opinion. It also likely involves suggestibility, and probably a host of other very complex psychological/emotional/cultural issues. Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:23:38 GMTDavidLhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]DavidL (12/5/2012)[/b][hr]...According to Myers-Briggs, INTJ and their ilk are relatively uncommon, something like about 5% of the population. It strikes me as significant that quite a number of posters have said that they are INTJ or something similar. There are clearly a smaller group of temperaments that are attracted to the work we do...[/quote]I'm another INTJ, and once I finish fixing all the systems here at my company, I'll have to investigate this hypothesis ;-)Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:02:15 GMTChris Harshmanhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic460054-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Miles Neale (12/5/2012)[/b][hr]Did I read the article right? If you have an employee who does a good job, is somewhat driven to get the job done but sees value in his life and family then that person is not worthy of a promotion? I might have tossed a little opinion or yellow journalism into that but it just sounded that if an employee loves his family more than hiss job then they are cannon fodder. If that is what is intended, please show me the exit, I would need to go find a good job in a good company. If a company sees my willingness to sell out my life and family then they are garbage!:-)M.[/quote]Miles you are spot on. When I worked at Kennedy Space Center years ago there was a lady that was basically given this reason that she was not promotable because she wasn't driven enough. When she asked what "driven" meant in real terms the manager told her she was basically a "9-to-5" gal. She then explained "You are penalizing me because I have children and family obligations. I have to pick my kids up at a certain time and put dinner on the table for them. I can't be here until midnight like others in this department can and it is unfair for you to expect me to." The manager stood by his appraisal and her promotion to the next level was denied. She then filed a complaint not only with HR, but also with the EOE board and that manager was ultimately terminated for discrimination. She also went to file an EOE suit and was eventually given the promotion with retroactive pay as well. Managers have to be very careful today about using [b]silly[/b] "one fits all" guidelines like this in a [b]real world[/b] today where everyone's situation is different. it could get your company sued big time.:-DWed, 05 Dec 2012 10:54:48 GMTTravisDBA