I've been reading some interesting commentary on the history of psychological testing and the large numbers of personality tests that have come in and out of fashion over the years. I admit that I think personality quizzes, like the ones I've linked on previous blogs, are entertaining to a certain degree, but I always assumed their accuracy was somewhat akin to horoscopes. I've read certain descriptions of my personality based solely on my date of birth that seem a bit true, but I've also read ones so far off the mark that they make me laugh. This variety of accuracy (stemming, no doubt, from the idea that the more descriptors someone writes, the more likely at least one will fit the person reading) seems to be the same for these personality tests, so I was surprised to learn that many companies and doctors place a good deal of trust in some of these results. Some of these tests are even used in court, affecting important life decisions.
When I worked for the government, part of my training was to take the Myers-Briggs Personality Test with other new hires. The proctors were careful to call it a team-building exercise and an ice-breaker, but I figured that they really wanted to add a label to our personnel files. For a few hours, twenty or so people answered question after question on social and recreational preferences and feelings towards specific situations. Periodically throughout the test, I couldn't help thinking, "I can't believe I'm getting paid for this!" I was paid well, too--your tax dollars at work. In the end, I was presented with a very elaborate printout of my personality type (one of 16 possibilities), and what strengths and weaknesses that entailed. I was perplexed and a little amused, and that was the end of it, as far as I knew.
Since then, I've heard and read many things about that specific test, particularly that a large percentage of people score a different personality type when they retake the test. This change could be due to being in a different mood while answering the questions or understanding the wording of some questions differently the second time. I would be happy to take the test again to see if my type (which, according to the test developers, is supposed to be immutable from birth) is different, but only if some company wants to pay me for my time. While they're at it, they can also tell me which of my humors are out of whack (I feel my bile rising) and whether the natural variations of my skull make me predisposed to liking chocolate.
I highly doubt that the government would waste so much time on administering the personality test to simply build teamwork among people who would soon be working in different branches and locations, so they must have placed some emphasis on the results. Interestingly, my placement into the niche INTJ by the proctors at the U.S. government did not seem to warn them that I would quickly become immensely dissatisfied with employment there and quit to run 3000 miles away. That should be proof enough of the limits of such testing. I've already blogged about my dislike of labels, and in that I agree with Carl Jung: "Every individual is an exception to the rule. To stick labels on people at first sight is nothing but a childish parlor game." It can be a scary prospect if those in positions of power put too much emphasis on these sort of group types; besides being rigid and inflexible, it leads closely to the type of thinking that certain races, sexes, etc, can be similarly judged and labeled.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Choose Your Own Disaster
I remember certain interactive books geared towards young adults called "Choose Your Own Adventure". They consisted of a few pages of plot with a choice at the end. The option would go something like: You pull aside the tangled vines to reveal a hidden doorway in the ancient wall. Crude symbols, etched deeply into the surface, send shivers of warning down your spine as you pull the door open to reveal a dark, musty passage. Behind you, on the wooded path that was empty just moments before, you think you hear a muffled snort as leaves crunch and twigs snap. Could the bounty hunters have found you at last? If you bravely explore the hidden passageway, turn to page 56. If you turn around to discover the cause of the noise, turn to page 78.
I never read very many of these books, because I found them unsatisfying. The plots were generally crude and quite creepy, often with endings like: You turn to leave the cave only to discover that you cannot move your legs. While you were greedily examining your treasure, you had unknowingly stepped into a quicksand booby trap. The more you struggle, the faster you sink, and no one can hear your cries for help. You spend you last moments wondering if you'd even managed to save your mother as the earth slowly swallows you whole. The end.
I don't like stories ending with starving in a pit or being eaten by giant spiders, and I like them even less when the horrible result is somehow my own fault. Not wanting to take credit for bad decisions, I would have to systematically find every possible route through the book to see all the potential results, thus defeating the purpose of the book, but easing my mind. Maybe this early exposure to stressful reading is one reason I tend to make decisions based on ruling out what I don't want, rather than deciding what I would most like.
That's always how I've made important decisions, such as choosing a college to attend. I first crossed off states that I didn't want to live in (incidentally, I think my 16-year-old self crossed off Florida....), then discarded universities that were too large, too fraternity-based or too expensive. I then ruled out places with any particularities that I found annoying and ended up with 3 colleges out of all of the U.S. Unfortunately, since I was accepted at all three, I still had to narrow it down. I discarded the most expensive one, and went to visit the closest one to my home at the time (that meant only an ocean away, rather than an ocean and a continent). I figured if I liked the feel, I would go there (in Virginia) and if not, I would go to the other one (in Washington State)--sight unseen. I ended up liking the first one, and it turned out to be a good choice, but I still don't know if my methods are healthy. I guess I don't know what I want, but I know what I DON'T want.
I don't want to end up drowning in ship wreck. I don't want to be attacked by killer bees. I don't want to be poked in the eye with a pointed stick. In my adventure, if I turned around and find out what was behind me on the path, would it be a cuddly pot-bellied pig digging up forest truffles that I could give to the old lady in the village in return for a magic charm that would heal my ailing horse who I could then ride into the mountains to save my captured friend and live happily ever after? Or would it be the enraged werewolf ready to tear me in two (I'd have already used my silver bullet on the vampire earlier that day). I definitely wouldn't choose to go into the dark passageway; that would most likely be walking into a trap.
No, I would choose plan C, the unwritten option: Using the vines to scale the wall, you get the heck out of there.
I never read very many of these books, because I found them unsatisfying. The plots were generally crude and quite creepy, often with endings like: You turn to leave the cave only to discover that you cannot move your legs. While you were greedily examining your treasure, you had unknowingly stepped into a quicksand booby trap. The more you struggle, the faster you sink, and no one can hear your cries for help. You spend you last moments wondering if you'd even managed to save your mother as the earth slowly swallows you whole. The end.
I don't like stories ending with starving in a pit or being eaten by giant spiders, and I like them even less when the horrible result is somehow my own fault. Not wanting to take credit for bad decisions, I would have to systematically find every possible route through the book to see all the potential results, thus defeating the purpose of the book, but easing my mind. Maybe this early exposure to stressful reading is one reason I tend to make decisions based on ruling out what I don't want, rather than deciding what I would most like.
That's always how I've made important decisions, such as choosing a college to attend. I first crossed off states that I didn't want to live in (incidentally, I think my 16-year-old self crossed off Florida....), then discarded universities that were too large, too fraternity-based or too expensive. I then ruled out places with any particularities that I found annoying and ended up with 3 colleges out of all of the U.S. Unfortunately, since I was accepted at all three, I still had to narrow it down. I discarded the most expensive one, and went to visit the closest one to my home at the time (that meant only an ocean away, rather than an ocean and a continent). I figured if I liked the feel, I would go there (in Virginia) and if not, I would go to the other one (in Washington State)--sight unseen. I ended up liking the first one, and it turned out to be a good choice, but I still don't know if my methods are healthy. I guess I don't know what I want, but I know what I DON'T want.
I don't want to end up drowning in ship wreck. I don't want to be attacked by killer bees. I don't want to be poked in the eye with a pointed stick. In my adventure, if I turned around and find out what was behind me on the path, would it be a cuddly pot-bellied pig digging up forest truffles that I could give to the old lady in the village in return for a magic charm that would heal my ailing horse who I could then ride into the mountains to save my captured friend and live happily ever after? Or would it be the enraged werewolf ready to tear me in two (I'd have already used my silver bullet on the vampire earlier that day). I definitely wouldn't choose to go into the dark passageway; that would most likely be walking into a trap.
No, I would choose plan C, the unwritten option: Using the vines to scale the wall, you get the heck out of there.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
More nerd than geek....
Lately, some conversations and choices of leisure activities have caused me to feel somewhat geeky. I've recently dredged up from my memory some embarrassingly specific details of science-fictiony things, I've been reading about sociology, ethology and geography for fun, I've completed a jigsaw puzzle and numerous NY Times crosswords, and I've become increasingly uninterested in clothes and fashion (hardly seems possible, I know).
These geeky behaviors, however, have not sprouted any new interest in the traditionally geeky fields of technology or computer programming. Although I'm computer literate enough to have this simple blog and watch videos of interest on You Tube, I have no idea how people achieved such funny and elaborate results with things like Stephen Colbert's Green Screen Challenge. Even if I wanted to participate, I would have absolutely no clue how to start (which is okay, though, because I'm not much of a joiner anyway). So, though I am enough of a geek to know about the Rancor Monsters and Daleks featured in some of those projects, I seem to be lacking in any real geek ability. (I admittedly even have a Rancor Monster in my closet (it's only a model) along with a Darth Vader shaped box of Star Wars people and an Ewok village. Granted, they're packed away in a moving box, so it's not like I'm staging blaster battles on a daily basis, but I just can't bring myself to give them away. I also just watched the latest Doctor Who out on DVD with Christopher Eccleston (good bit of casting) fighting a new wave of Daleks in a very entertaining update of the old series.)
I've never hacked into anything (or even tried to (or even ever thought about it really)), and I'm no good at video games (unless you count the Sims, which I did like when it came out, but you can hardly lose at that game unless you lock your person in a room with no doors and no food, which is a really cruel idea, but, of course, one that had to be tried). My method for fixing any computer problem after trying "esc" and "ctrl-alt-del" is to turn it off and on again (which, surprisingly, has been a very effective strategy for me).
So, to answer the question of my geekiness, I did the geeky thing and turned to the internet. First, I turned to a geek quiz to find my geek factor, which turns out to be surprisingly low--or not that surprising, it seems, since I don't like comic books, programming, or conventions of any kind. This low number came with a picture of Kirsten Dunst, which I guess means something good, although I'm not sure what.
________________________________
You are 29% geek 
You are a geek liaison, which means you go both ways. You can hang out with normal people or you can hang out with geeks which means you often have geeks as friends and/or have a job where you have to mediate between geeks and normal people. This is an important role and one of which you should be proud. In fact, you can make a good deal of money as a translator.
For The Record:
A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.
A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.
You scored better than half in Nerd, earning you the title of: Pure Nerd.
The times, they are a-changing. It used to be that being exceptionally smart led to being unpopular,
which would ultimately lead to picking up all of the traits and tendencies associated with the "dork."
No-longer. Being smart isn't as socially crippling as it once was, and even more so as you get older:
eventually being a Pure Nerd will likely be replaced with the following label: Purely Successful.
Congratulations!
_______________________________________________________
I'm glad to now know that the skeletons (Rancor Monster) in my closet mean that I will end up a huge success. All this time spent on the internet has been totally worth it!
Incidently, the screwy font sizes on this blog should be evidence that I'm not geeky enough to fix computer glitches!
These geeky behaviors, however, have not sprouted any new interest in the traditionally geeky fields of technology or computer programming. Although I'm computer literate enough to have this simple blog and watch videos of interest on You Tube, I have no idea how people achieved such funny and elaborate results with things like Stephen Colbert's Green Screen Challenge. Even if I wanted to participate, I would have absolutely no clue how to start (which is okay, though, because I'm not much of a joiner anyway). So, though I am enough of a geek to know about the Rancor Monsters and Daleks featured in some of those projects, I seem to be lacking in any real geek ability. (I admittedly even have a Rancor Monster in my closet (it's only a model) along with a Darth Vader shaped box of Star Wars people and an Ewok village. Granted, they're packed away in a moving box, so it's not like I'm staging blaster battles on a daily basis, but I just can't bring myself to give them away. I also just watched the latest Doctor Who out on DVD with Christopher Eccleston (good bit of casting) fighting a new wave of Daleks in a very entertaining update of the old series.)
I've never hacked into anything (or even tried to (or even ever thought about it really)), and I'm no good at video games (unless you count the Sims, which I did like when it came out, but you can hardly lose at that game unless you lock your person in a room with no doors and no food, which is a really cruel idea, but, of course, one that had to be tried). My method for fixing any computer problem after trying "esc" and "ctrl-alt-del" is to turn it off and on again (which, surprisingly, has been a very effective strategy for me).
So, to answer the question of my geekiness, I did the geeky thing and turned to the internet. First, I turned to a geek quiz to find my geek factor, which turns out to be surprisingly low--or not that surprising, it seems, since I don't like comic books, programming, or conventions of any kind. This low number came with a picture of Kirsten Dunst, which I guess means something good, although I'm not sure what.
________________________________
Normal: Tell our geek we need him to work this weekend.
You [to Geek]: We need more than that, Scotty. You'll have to stay until you can squeeze more outta them engines!
Geek [to You]: I'm givin' her all she's got, Captain, but we need more dilithium crystals!
You [to Normal]: He wants to know if he gets overtime.
I like this assessment. I've always felt that I could communicate with a wide range of people. So, by this website, I am not geeky, but definitely not hip. My next search, then, was to find the difference between being a geek, a nerd, and a dork. Not surprisingly, I immediately found a webpage for this as well, which led me to understand that I have been feeling nerdy rather than geeky.
My results:
______________________________________________________
Pure Nerd
82 % Nerd, 30% Geek, 21% Dork
A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.
A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.
You scored better than half in Nerd, earning you the title of: Pure Nerd.
The times, they are a-changing. It used to be that being exceptionally smart led to being unpopular,
which would ultimately lead to picking up all of the traits and tendencies associated with the "dork."
No-longer. Being smart isn't as socially crippling as it once was, and even more so as you get older:
eventually being a Pure Nerd will likely be replaced with the following label: Purely Successful.
Congratulations!
_______________________________________________________
I'm glad to now know that the skeletons (Rancor Monster) in my closet mean that I will end up a huge success. All this time spent on the internet has been totally worth it!
Incidently, the screwy font sizes on this blog should be evidence that I'm not geeky enough to fix computer glitches!
Steven Colbert's Green Screen Challenge
Take the Polygeek Quiz at Thudfactor.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
