I can appreciate the tendency of we humans to use personality typing to "foment our tendency to simplify ourselves and others;' however, for me, they do the exact opposite.
I believe that I am not alone in regularly making an initial assumption that others will make the same decisions as me, respond the way I do, be similar to me. The Enneagram and MBTI help remind me that I have certain tendencies and others may not share them. For example, MBTI can help me realize that I get impatient when others are making decisions because I often act as a MBTI type J whereas others want to take more time and gather more information (i.e, are more P-like). That knowledge gives me an appreciation of a different perspective in a way that my brain can recognize and the information needed for me to move from frustration to appreciation.
Thanks for sharing this, Mark. You bring up an interesting point. I agree that personality tests have their place (especially the Big Five, which has some solid scientific research behind it). They can definitely provide some good insights about ourselves and others, as they seem to have done for you. However, I've also observed the tendency to use these tests to rationalize and explain away all human behavior in reductive and unhelpful ways and this, obviously, goes too far. I think as long as they're used as moderately helpful tools of self-knowledge they can be quite valuable. Thanks again for sharing!
I think we, as people, have a tendency to forget George Box's famous quote "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Whether the models are for personality traits, physical systems, financial systems, economic systems or others, we people have a tendency to expect them to explain everything perfectly. In your essay, you capture that tendency.
My recommendation is that we take a step back to find where models are useful. I have never heard any atmospheric scientist claim their model will identify climate change issues exactly. However, by using multiple models, that community has developed an understanding of what is possible and what is likely so we as a society can start to address those issues. Likewise, I don't think any novelist would claim that the character they wrote perfectly captures all the nuance of an actual person. I have a similar viewpoint about personality tests. They are useful in identifying tendencies and sometimes why we each have those tendencies and thus can be useful to identify how we differ which is much better than the natural model -- I expect everyone else to think and act just like me.
Well said, Mark. As a writer, I appreciate your analogy of novelists and their characters. I think you're right with your assessment on making sure we're using these models in ways that are helpful and realistic: tools that shed light on various human tendencies but still leave room for the nuance, complexity, and mystery of people as individuals.
I can appreciate the tendency of we humans to use personality typing to "foment our tendency to simplify ourselves and others;' however, for me, they do the exact opposite.
I believe that I am not alone in regularly making an initial assumption that others will make the same decisions as me, respond the way I do, be similar to me. The Enneagram and MBTI help remind me that I have certain tendencies and others may not share them. For example, MBTI can help me realize that I get impatient when others are making decisions because I often act as a MBTI type J whereas others want to take more time and gather more information (i.e, are more P-like). That knowledge gives me an appreciation of a different perspective in a way that my brain can recognize and the information needed for me to move from frustration to appreciation.
Thanks for sharing this, Mark. You bring up an interesting point. I agree that personality tests have their place (especially the Big Five, which has some solid scientific research behind it). They can definitely provide some good insights about ourselves and others, as they seem to have done for you. However, I've also observed the tendency to use these tests to rationalize and explain away all human behavior in reductive and unhelpful ways and this, obviously, goes too far. I think as long as they're used as moderately helpful tools of self-knowledge they can be quite valuable. Thanks again for sharing!
I think we, as people, have a tendency to forget George Box's famous quote "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Whether the models are for personality traits, physical systems, financial systems, economic systems or others, we people have a tendency to expect them to explain everything perfectly. In your essay, you capture that tendency.
My recommendation is that we take a step back to find where models are useful. I have never heard any atmospheric scientist claim their model will identify climate change issues exactly. However, by using multiple models, that community has developed an understanding of what is possible and what is likely so we as a society can start to address those issues. Likewise, I don't think any novelist would claim that the character they wrote perfectly captures all the nuance of an actual person. I have a similar viewpoint about personality tests. They are useful in identifying tendencies and sometimes why we each have those tendencies and thus can be useful to identify how we differ which is much better than the natural model -- I expect everyone else to think and act just like me.
Well said, Mark. As a writer, I appreciate your analogy of novelists and their characters. I think you're right with your assessment on making sure we're using these models in ways that are helpful and realistic: tools that shed light on various human tendencies but still leave room for the nuance, complexity, and mystery of people as individuals.
Thanks, Chris. I am looking forward to your future work. I am sure it will be interesting and valuable.