Myers Briggs, DISC, Personality of UX Folk

25 Jan 2008 - 12:22am
6 years ago
43 replies
2272 reads
Anthony Colfelt
2005

Hi all,

I'm drafting the second part of an article on Hiring UX professionals
for Boxes and Arrows at the moment and researching people's thoughts
on the all important axis of personality when hiring UX folk.

Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests like
Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or working
with others in your discipline?

When thinking about the individual streams of Research, Information
Architecture, Interaction Design, Graphic Design and Writing, do you
reckon each of these should display any particular personality
attributes as you might find in typing tests like Myers Briggs?

The obvious answer is "Well, that depends on your context". But I
thought it would make an interesting discussion point here and then
summarized in the article. What are your thoughts?

Anthony Colfelt

Comments

25 Jan 2008 - 12:41am
Jeff Howard
2004

Hi Anthony,

Here's an IxDA thread from 2006 on Myers Briggs, though it doesn't
focus on hiring:

What's your Personality Type?
http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=11819

// jeff

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

25 Jan 2008 - 5:51am
SemanticWill
2007

I'll weigh in, although my answers are obviously highly subjective. When
evaluating candidates and building a team I would rather boil in a vat of
hot molten lead than use a standardized test to inform anything, including
who is fit to make coffee. Actually - more strongly - I think standardized
tests are dangerous and serve only two purposes - to evaluate a candidates
ability to take the test and score in some manner that I have a prejudice in
thinking is the right personality matrix based on my own personality type;
and to enrich and further the memetic influence of test makers and
promoters. Myers Briggs is absolutely useless because it does not answer or
provide insight into the key metrics I need in evaluating an IxD/IA/UX
candidate which are:
1. Can the person design great experiences -- does knowing they are INTJ
inform that? No.
2. Can the person defend their designs when faced with opposition?
3. Can the person take criticism?
4. Can the person collaborate in the design process?
5. Deliver on a deadline?
6. Show up to work?

Besides the tests being highly subjective - they measure all the wrong
things, and do not provide me as a hiring manager with any information that
better informs my decision.

Two interaction designers board trains. One leaves Chicago at 4pm traveling
at 60mph, the other interaction designer (wearing black Dr. Martins) leaves
Boston at 330pm traveling at 72 mph - both headed towards each other. 3
hours later, the interaction designer on which train has created a more
compelling user registration process?

I have used many techniques for interviewing, evaluating, training and
mentoring folks in our field - and I would say that standardized tests are
the most onerous - nay - dangerous.

I found this list of questions and have used variations of this in the
interview process - I have added/modified it over recent years. This only
covers general knowledge, etc - and doesn't tell me how the person will
design or interact with a group - but at least it's far better than some
Myers Briggs test:

Fundamental IA/UX/UI Knowledge Interview Questions.

1. What two or three interaction design, information architecture or
user experience design books would you recommend to your colleagues? Which
has contributed the most to your understanding of our profession?
2. How do you keep your knowledge of user experience design and
usability up to date?
3. How do you define when a website or application is "usable enough"?
4. Can you explain what heuristic evaluation is and what some of its
strengths and weaknesses are?
5. What are some general guidelines for making web applications
accessible to users with visual, hearing, or motor disabilities?
6. What courses or seminars have you taken on usability or user
interface design?
7. Can you give a few examples of cognitive principles that should
influence software design?
8. What are some of the differences in designing for the thin clients
versus designing for print or a Windows or Macintosh thick client
application?
9. What are some UI design principles that you would try to follow
when designing web pages ?
10. How do you decide what tasks should be included in a usability
test?
11. How would you conduct a competitive analysis of two applications
or websites?
12. Describe how the user's physical environment can have an impact on
the design of a website.
13. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of contextual
inquiry or field studies for the design of a website or application?

Experience in an IA/UX designer role

1. What are some of the ethical issues that can arise in a usability
or user interface design position? Have you experienced any of these
personally? What did you do to resolve/deal with these issues?
2. What usability methods are you most experienced with?
3. Are you familiar with any information architecture methodologies?
Which ones?
4. What usability/UI design methods would you like to know more about
or are least experienced with?
5. Have you taught any courses or seminars in usability or user
interface design? What topics did you cover in the course?
6. Have you ever been involved in determining user requirements for a
web application or desktop application? What methods did you use to
determine these requirements and what was your involvement in the process?
7. Describe how you have marketed or evangelized user centered design
or user experience design in your current position? How would you market it
if you were the first usability or user experience design professional in a
company?
8. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a style guide?
If you have worked on a style guide, describe your method for developing it.
9. How have you addressed issues of user interface consistency across
products in your current position?
10. In your current role, what percentage of time do you spend in
evaluation versus design?
11. What have/can you do to make usability testing in a lab
environment as realistic as possible?
12. How much experience do you have recruiting external customers for
evaluation or design activities? Have you done group or individual user
focus sessions?
13. What steps have you taken to convince a recalcitrant developer to
listen to your advice?
14. How would you explain the benefits of a user-centered design
approach to a project manager or program manager who is unfamiliar with it?

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 25, 2008 12:22 AM, Anthony Colfelt <anthony at colfelt.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm drafting the second part of an article on Hiring UX professionals
> for Boxes and Arrows at the moment and researching people's thoughts
> on the all important axis of personality when hiring UX folk.
>
> Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests like
> Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or working
> with others in your discipline?
>
> When thinking about the individual streams of Research, Information
> Architecture, Interaction Design, Graphic Design and Writing, do you
> reckon each of these should display any particular personality
> attributes as you might find in typing tests like Myers Briggs?
>
> The obvious answer is "Well, that depends on your context". But I
> thought it would make an interesting discussion point here and then
> summarized in the article. What are your thoughts?
>
> Anthony Colfelt
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

25 Jan 2008 - 6:45am
Chauncey Wilson
2007

Will's response is quite elegant and right on the mark. Personality
tests like the MB or many others often peg people as having a
particular disposition and ignore the fact that personality interacts
strongly with situational factors. Think about how we may be quite
different personas in different situations -- I'm very shy at cocktail
parties and avoid them as much as possible but I can be quite
theatrical in front of a good audience -- two quite different
behaviors in social situations. If you dig into the MB or read
reviews by serious academics, you will find that it has questionable
validation. In the early 1970s, there was a major debate in the
social psychology field over the predictability of personality tests
(you take the test and then correlate some type of performance with
the score) and the amout of variance attributed to personality was
very low (say in the range of 5-17% of behavior could be attributed to
personality). There is some interaction of personality with context
as my earlier example pointed out and there is some predictability
with some personality tests, but not all that much. The debate of
personality versus situation was between Daryl Bem and Walter Mischel
(two brilliant fellows in personality and social psychology).

So, given the low correlation between performance and personality
scores, I would consider them dangerous (and the labels they put on
people something to avoid). I've been in several workshops where these
types of tests are given and the group as a whole latches on to the
scores and descriptions of the "personality" and even with moderators
who caution not to take the scores too seriously, the next 3 hours are
a discussion of the scores and how they are strong predictors of job
performance when in fact, they are not.

I was the "victim" once of a company that wanted to use an MB-like
test to support decisions about management and promotion. Most senior
managers balked and the company withdrew the test as a basic for
promotion. I was ready to quit if forced to take the test.

Chauncey

On Jan 25, 2008 5:51 AM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll weigh in, although my answers are obviously highly subjective. When
> evaluating candidates and building a team I would rather boil in a vat of
> hot molten lead than use a standardized test to inform anything, including
> who is fit to make coffee. Actually - more strongly - I think standardized
> tests are dangerous and serve only two purposes - to evaluate a candidates
> ability to take the test and score in some manner that I have a prejudice in
> thinking is the right personality matrix based on my own personality type;
> and to enrich and further the memetic influence of test makers and
> promoters. Myers Briggs is absolutely useless because it does not answer or
> provide insight into the key metrics I need in evaluating an IxD/IA/UX
> candidate which are:
> 1. Can the person design great experiences -- does knowing they are INTJ
> inform that? No.
> 2. Can the person defend their designs when faced with opposition?
> 3. Can the person take criticism?
> 4. Can the person collaborate in the design process?
> 5. Deliver on a deadline?
> 6. Show up to work?
>
> Besides the tests being highly subjective - they measure all the wrong
> things, and do not provide me as a hiring manager with any information that
> better informs my decision.
>
> Two interaction designers board trains. One leaves Chicago at 4pm traveling
> at 60mph, the other interaction designer (wearing black Dr. Martins) leaves
> Boston at 330pm traveling at 72 mph - both headed towards each other. 3
> hours later, the interaction designer on which train has created a more
> compelling user registration process?
>
> I have used many techniques for interviewing, evaluating, training and
> mentoring folks in our field - and I would say that standardized tests are
> the most onerous - nay - dangerous.
>
> I found this list of questions and have used variations of this in the
> interview process - I have added/modified it over recent years. This only
> covers general knowledge, etc - and doesn't tell me how the person will
> design or interact with a group - but at least it's far better than some
> Myers Briggs test:
>
> Fundamental IA/UX/UI Knowledge Interview Questions.
>
> 1. What two or three interaction design, information architecture or
> user experience design books would you recommend to your colleagues? Which
> has contributed the most to your understanding of our profession?
> 2. How do you keep your knowledge of user experience design and
> usability up to date?
> 3. How do you define when a website or application is "usable enough"?
> 4. Can you explain what heuristic evaluation is and what some of its
> strengths and weaknesses are?
> 5. What are some general guidelines for making web applications
> accessible to users with visual, hearing, or motor disabilities?
> 6. What courses or seminars have you taken on usability or user
> interface design?
> 7. Can you give a few examples of cognitive principles that should
> influence software design?
> 8. What are some of the differences in designing for the thin clients
> versus designing for print or a Windows or Macintosh thick client
> application?
> 9. What are some UI design principles that you would try to follow
> when designing web pages ?
> 10. How do you decide what tasks should be included in a usability
> test?
> 11. How would you conduct a competitive analysis of two applications
> or websites?
> 12. Describe how the user's physical environment can have an impact on
> the design of a website.
> 13. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of contextual
> inquiry or field studies for the design of a website or application?
>
> Experience in an IA/UX designer role
>
> 1. What are some of the ethical issues that can arise in a usability
> or user interface design position? Have you experienced any of these
> personally? What did you do to resolve/deal with these issues?
> 2. What usability methods are you most experienced with?
> 3. Are you familiar with any information architecture methodologies?
> Which ones?
> 4. What usability/UI design methods would you like to know more about
> or are least experienced with?
> 5. Have you taught any courses or seminars in usability or user
> interface design? What topics did you cover in the course?
> 6. Have you ever been involved in determining user requirements for a
> web application or desktop application? What methods did you use to
> determine these requirements and what was your involvement in the process?
> 7. Describe how you have marketed or evangelized user centered design
> or user experience design in your current position? How would you market it
> if you were the first usability or user experience design professional in a
> company?
> 8. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a style guide?
> If you have worked on a style guide, describe your method for developing it.
> 9. How have you addressed issues of user interface consistency across
> products in your current position?
> 10. In your current role, what percentage of time do you spend in
> evaluation versus design?
> 11. What have/can you do to make usability testing in a lab
> environment as realistic as possible?
> 12. How much experience do you have recruiting external customers for
> evaluation or design activities? Have you done group or individual user
> focus sessions?
> 13. What steps have you taken to convince a recalcitrant developer to
> listen to your advice?
> 14. How would you explain the benefits of a user-centered design
> approach to a project manager or program manager who is unfamiliar with it?
>
>
>
> --
> ~ will
>
> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> and what you innovate are design problems"
> -------------------------------------------------------
> will evans
> user experience architect
> wkevans4 at gmail.com
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 12:22 AM, Anthony Colfelt <anthony at colfelt.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm drafting the second part of an article on Hiring UX professionals
> > for Boxes and Arrows at the moment and researching people's thoughts
> > on the all important axis of personality when hiring UX folk.
> >
> > Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests like
> > Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or working
> > with others in your discipline?
> >
> > When thinking about the individual streams of Research, Information
> > Architecture, Interaction Design, Graphic Design and Writing, do you
> > reckon each of these should display any particular personality
> > attributes as you might find in typing tests like Myers Briggs?
> >
> > The obvious answer is "Well, that depends on your context". But I
> > thought it would make an interesting discussion point here and then
> > summarized in the article. What are your thoughts?
> >
> > Anthony Colfelt
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> > February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> > Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

25 Jan 2008 - 8:36am
Todd Warfel
2003

On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Anthony Colfelt wrote:
> Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests
> like Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or
> working with others in your discipline?

DISC is definitely helpful as it's more situational than MB. However,
it's not just the data that comes from the test that's important, it's
know how to make up your team, keep things in balance, know where you
have gaps you need to fill and what type of person you need to fill
them.

But a profile test is only one piece of the entire puzzle. Combine it
with a portfolio review, some design/intellect exercises and
references and I think you've got a good approach.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

25 Jan 2008 - 8:40am
Todd Warfel
2003

On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Chauncey Wilson wrote:

> Think about how we may be quite different personas in different
> situations -- I'm very shy at cocktail parties and avoid them as
> much as possible but I can be quite theatrical in front of a good
> audience -- two quite different behaviors in social situations.

Which is precisely why DISC is better for this type of situation, as
it's, hold it, wait for it, yes, that's right—situational.

Will is correct in that it won't help you evaluate how good of a
Designer they are. That's what intellectual exercises, portfolio
reviews, and references are for. It does, however, give you insights
into things that often slip by in an interview, like client management
skills.

Again, it's about balance and having one additional perspective/
insight into the person and how they'll fit into the fold.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

25 Jan 2008 - 8:54am
Benjamin Ho
2007

I've had much training in DISC and I can share with you that it's
more about how the different personalties interact and understanding
that instead of having your candidate being tested. Being trained in
DISC, I can tell you what kind of personality a candidate has based on
our discussion about themselves and their opinions, etc.. DISC is
more of a foundation to build upon the knowledge of specific people.
Remember this - it's not to be used to pigeon-hole people, it's
used to understand people. When you're aware of DISC, you can
better handle yourself and the team.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

25 Jan 2008 - 9:36am
Chauncey Wilson
2007

I'm not familiar with DISC. Where can I find good information on
that? Has it been validated in some way (ratings of hires or better
interpersonal communication)?

Chauncey

On Jan 25, 2008 8:36 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel <lists at toddwarfel.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Anthony Colfelt wrote:
> > Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests
> > like Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or
> > working with others in your discipline?
>
>
> DISC is definitely helpful as it's more situational than MB. However,
> it's not just the data that comes from the test that's important, it's
> know how to make up your team, keep things in balance, know where you
> have gaps you need to fill and what type of person you need to fill
> them.
>
> But a profile test is only one piece of the entire puzzle. Combine it
> with a portfolio review, some design/intellect exercises and
> references and I think you've got a good approach.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd Zaki Warfel
> President, Design Researcher
> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
> ----------------------------------
> Contact Info
> Voice: (215) 825-7423
> Email: todd at messagefirst.com
> AIM: twarfel at mac.com
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
> ----------------------------------
> In theory, theory and practice are the same.
> In practice, they are not.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

25 Jan 2008 - 9:41am
SemanticWill
2007

RE: Todd's comments.

I am not back peddling per se, but I didn't want to think that the list of
interview questions I ask, the answers, portfolio review - etc. are the only
thing that matters. It does depend on the position (and context) - a
designer must be able to design of course, but I have a small anecdote. I
worked once with a small team of 4 people. One woman that worked with us had
all the right credentials - including an MS in human factors and information
design. She couldn't wireframe or prototype herself out of a paper bag. He
interface designs were so bad, they almost make Nielson's useit.com seem
aesthetically pleasing. She had plenty of theory behind her - but could not
do a darn thing in terms of IxD or IA - that said - she was the most
important person on the team because she had some amazing, innate ability to
create the kind of teamwork, environment, discussions, collaborative design,
brainstorming sessions, etc that was truly a marvel to see. I am absolutely
sure that our entire project would have failed without her. Her background,
and understanding of the processes and theory were invaluable in creating
bridges of communication between the team members. No interview questions,
portfolio, or tests would have picked up this unique skill set of hers.

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 25, 2008 8:40 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel <lists at toddwarfel.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Chauncey Wilson wrote:
>
> Think about how we may be quite different personas in different situations
> -- I'm very shy at cocktail parties and avoid them as much as possible but I
> can be quite theatrical in front of a good audience -- two quite
> different behaviors in social situations.
>
>
> Which is precisely why DISC is better for this type of situation, as it's,
> hold it, wait for it, yes, that's right—situational.
>
> Will is correct in that it won't help you evaluate how good of a Designer
> they are. That's what intellectual exercises, portfolio reviews, and
> references are for. It does, however, give you insights into things that
> often slip by in an interview, like client management skills.
>
> Again, it's about balance and having one additional perspective/insight
> into the person and how they'll fit into the fold.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd Zaki Warfel
> President, Design Researcher
> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
> ----------------------------------
> *Contact Info*
> Voice: (215) 825-7423Email: todd at messagefirst.com
> AIM: twarfel at mac.com
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
> ----------------------------------
> In theory, theory and practice are the same.
> In practice, they are not.
>
>

25 Jan 2008 - 10:41am
Cwodtke
2004

http://gladwell.com/2004/2004_09_20_a_personality.html

Myers-Briggs was invented by an ordinary woman who didn't understand Jung or
her son-in-law.... read on!

Where did the Myers-Briggs come from, after all? As Paul tells us, it began
with a housewife from Washington, D.C., named Katharine Briggs, at the turn
of the last century. Briggs had a daughter, Isabel, an only child for whom
(as one relative put it) she did "everything but breathe." When Isabel was
still in her teens, Katharine wrote a book-length manuscript about her
daughter's remarkable childhood, calling her a "genius" and "a little
Shakespeare." When Isabel went off to Swarthmore College, in 1915, the two
exchanged letters nearly every day. Then, one day, Isabel brought home her
college boyfriend and announced that they were to be married. His name was
Clarence (Chief) Myers. He was tall and handsome and studying to be a
lawyer, and he could not have been more different from the Briggs women.
Katharine and Isabel were bold and imaginative and intuitive. Myers was
practical and logical and detail-oriented. Katharine could not understand
her future son-in-law. "When the blissful young couple returned to
Swarthmore," Paul writes, "Katharine retreated to her study, intent on
'figuring out Chief.' "She began to read widely in psychology and
philosophy. Then, in 1923, she came across the first English translation of
Carl Jung's "Psychological Types." "This is it!" Katharine told her
daughter. Paul recounts, "In a dramatic display of conviction she burned all
her own research and adopted Jung's book as her 'Bible,' as she gushed in a
letter to the man himself. His system explained it all: Lyman [Katharine's
husband], Katharine, Isabel, and Chief were introverts; the two men were
thinkers, while the women were feelers; and of course the Briggses were
intuitives, while Chief was a senser." Encouraged by her mother, Isabel—who
was living in Swarthmore and writing mystery novels—devised a
paper-and-pencil test to help people identify which of the Jungian
categories they belonged to, and then spent the rest of her life tirelessly
and brilliantly promoting her creation.

The problem, as Paul points out, is that Myers and her mother did not
actually understand Jung at all. Jung didn't believe that types were easily
identifiable, and he didn't believe that people could be permanently slotted
into one category or another. "Every individual is an exception to the
rule," he wrote; to "stick labels on people at first sight," in his view,
was "nothing but a childish parlor game." Why is a parlor game based on my
desire to entertain my friends any less valid than a parlor game based on
Katharine Briggs's obsession with her son-in-law?

On Jan 24, 2008 9:22 PM, Anthony Colfelt <anthony at colfelt.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm drafting the second part of an article on Hiring UX professionals
> for Boxes and Arrows at the moment and researching people's thoughts
> on the all important axis of personality when hiring UX folk.
>
> Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests like
> Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or working
> with others in your discipline?
>
> When thinking about the individual streams of Research, Information
> Architecture, Interaction Design, Graphic Design and Writing, do you
> reckon each of these should display any particular personality
> attributes as you might find in typing tests like Myers Briggs?
>
> The obvious answer is "Well, that depends on your context". But I
> thought it would make an interesting discussion point here and then
> summarized in the article. What are your thoughts?
>
> Anthony Colfelt
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

25 Jan 2008 - 11:06am
Benjamin Ho
2007

Chauncey Wilson said:
"I'm not familiar with DISC. Where can I find good information on
that? Has it been validated in some way (ratings of hires or better
interpersonal communication) ?"

Again, DISC is NOT a rating. It only identifies what kind of basic
personality someone has. Here's a link to my trainer:
http://www.personalityinsights.com/

DISC is one of the simplest methodologies in discerning personalities
and blends of them.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

25 Jan 2008 - 11:55am
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

There is a fundamental confusion here between two different things: STATES
and TRAITS. Traits are persistent, States are transient. Every individual
can be characterized has having certain persistent traits. Persistent
doesn't mean they will never change -- it only means that they will remain
quite stable over a long period of time, barring some signficant
life-changing (including, traumatic) experiences. [If your TRAITS change
frequently, you need some serious help.] States, on the other hand, like
moods, change from moment to moment. MBTI and other 'personality style'
instruments do not assess STATES but TRAITS.
Also, whoever uses such instruments for recruitment is guilty of grossly
misusing them and violating their fundamental purpose. Personality style
instruments are best employed to gain insights into oneself. They should be
answered honestly, if they are to be of any use - any instrument can be
'gamed' to give the desired results, but who benefits from this?

I have used the MBTI for years with my students to help them understand
themselves and be able to better relate to others and most of them love it.
I also tell them -- and this is important that such instruments do not
delimit the scope of an individuals behaviors because of the distinction
between STATES and TRAITS. They should never be used for pigeonholing
people. I don't require my students to share their MBTI profiles with
others, but many do, voluntarily.

-murli
==============================================================
On Jan 25, 2008 5:15 PM, Chauncey Wilson <chauncey.wilson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Think about how we may be quite
> different personas in different situations -- I'm very shy at cocktail
> parties and avoid them as much as possible but I can be quite
> theatrical in front of a good audience -- two quite different
> behaviors in social situations.

25 Jan 2008 - 12:03pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Focus group of one...

I have taken the DISC analysis 4 times over the course of 7 years and got radically different scores each time, of course that could speak to mutliple personality disorder. Seriously though... the results were interesting and sparked some valuable introspection... but never felt anywhere close to conclusive as benchmarks.

-Mark

On Friday, January 25, 2008, at 11:06AM, "Benjamin Ho" <benoh2 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Again, DISC is NOT a rating. It only identifies what kind of basic
>personality someone has. Here's a link to my trainer:
>http://www.personalityinsights.com/
>
>DISC is one of the simplest methodologies in discerning personalities
>and blends of them.

25 Jan 2008 - 12:35pm
Katie Albers
2005

And along the same lines:

MB has 4 points of tracking and two possible values for each, for a
total of 8 possible "personalities". Say what? I do not understand
why this has ever been taken seriously as a method for assessing
human beings in any way shape or form, and to make any form of
business decision on this basis is simply insane. Moreover, anyone
who can't figure out how to game those tests is just not having
enough fun in show biz. I put it in precisely the same category of
importance and reliability as "I'm a Libra with Pisces rising and
moon in Sagitarius" only less specific.

Katie

At 6:45 AM -0500 1/25/08, Chauncey Wilson wrote:
>Will's response is quite elegant and right on the mark. Personality
>tests like the MB or many others often peg people as having a
>particular disposition and ignore the fact that personality interacts
>strongly with situational factors. Think about how we may be quite
>different personas in different situations -- I'm very shy at cocktail
>parties and avoid them as much as possible but I can be quite
>theatrical in front of a good audience -- two quite different
>behaviors in social situations. If you dig into the MB or read
>reviews by serious academics, you will find that it has questionable
>validation. In the early 1970s, there was a major debate in the
>social psychology field over the predictability of personality tests
>(you take the test and then correlate some type of performance with
>the score) and the amout of variance attributed to personality was
>very low (say in the range of 5-17% of behavior could be attributed to
>personality). There is some interaction of personality with context
>as my earlier example pointed out and there is some predictability
>with some personality tests, but not all that much. The debate of
>personality versus situation was between Daryl Bem and Walter Mischel
>(two brilliant fellows in personality and social psychology).
>
>So, given the low correlation between performance and personality
>scores, I would consider them dangerous (and the labels they put on
>people something to avoid). I've been in several workshops where these
>types of tests are given and the group as a whole latches on to the
>scores and descriptions of the "personality" and even with moderators
>who caution not to take the scores too seriously, the next 3 hours are
>a discussion of the scores and how they are strong predictors of job
>performance when in fact, they are not.
>
>I was the "victim" once of a company that wanted to use an MB-like
>test to support decisions about management and promotion. Most senior
>managers balked and the company withdrew the test as a basic for
>promotion. I was ready to quit if forced to take the test.
>
>Chauncey
>
>On Jan 25, 2008 5:51 AM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'll weigh in, although my answers are obviously highly subjective. When
>> evaluating candidates and building a team I would rather boil in a vat of
>> hot molten lead than use a standardized test to inform anything, including
>> who is fit to make coffee. Actually - more strongly - I think standardized
>> tests are dangerous and serve only two purposes - to evaluate a candidates
>> ability to take the test and score in some manner that I have a prejudice in
>> thinking is the right personality matrix based on my own personality type;
>> and to enrich and further the memetic influence of test makers and
>> promoters. Myers Briggs is absolutely useless because it does not answer or
>> provide insight into the key metrics I need in evaluating an IxD/IA/UX
> > candidate which are:
>> 1. Can the person design great experiences -- does knowing they are INTJ
>> inform that? No.
>> 2. Can the person defend their designs when faced with opposition?
>> 3. Can the person take criticism?
>> 4. Can the person collaborate in the design process?
>> 5. Deliver on a deadline?
> > 6. Show up to work?
>>
>> Besides the tests being highly subjective - they measure all the wrong
>> things, and do not provide me as a hiring manager with any information that
>> better informs my decision.
>>
>> Two interaction designers board trains. One leaves Chicago at 4pm traveling
>> at 60mph, the other interaction designer (wearing black Dr. Martins) leaves
>> Boston at 330pm traveling at 72 mph - both headed towards each other. 3
>> hours later, the interaction designer on which train has created a more
>> compelling user registration process?
>>
>> I have used many techniques for interviewing, evaluating, training and
>> mentoring folks in our field - and I would say that standardized tests are
>> the most onerous - nay - dangerous.
>>
>> I found this list of questions and have used variations of this in the
>> interview process - I have added/modified it over recent years. This only
>> covers general knowledge, etc - and doesn't tell me how the person will
>> design or interact with a group - but at least it's far better than some
>> Myers Briggs test:
>>
>> Fundamental IA/UX/UI Knowledge Interview Questions.
>>
>> 1. What two or three interaction design, information architecture or
>> user experience design books would you recommend to your colleagues? Which
>> has contributed the most to your understanding of our profession?
>> 2. How do you keep your knowledge of user experience design and
>> usability up to date?
>> 3. How do you define when a website or application is "usable enough"?
>> 4. Can you explain what heuristic evaluation is and what some of its
>> strengths and weaknesses are?
>> 5. What are some general guidelines for making web applications
>> accessible to users with visual, hearing, or motor disabilities?
>> 6. What courses or seminars have you taken on usability or user
>> interface design?
>> 7. Can you give a few examples of cognitive principles that should
>> influence software design?
>> 8. What are some of the differences in designing for the thin clients
>> versus designing for print or a Windows or Macintosh thick client
>> application?
>> 9. What are some UI design principles that you would try to follow
>> when designing web pages ?
>> 10. How do you decide what tasks should be included in a usability
>> test?
>> 11. How would you conduct a competitive analysis of two applications
>> or websites?
>> 12. Describe how the user's physical environment can have an impact on
>> the design of a website.
>> 13. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of contextual
>> inquiry or field studies for the design of a website or application?
>>
>> Experience in an IA/UX designer role
>>
>> 1. What are some of the ethical issues that can arise in a usability
>> or user interface design position? Have you experienced any of these
>> personally? What did you do to resolve/deal with these issues?
>> 2. What usability methods are you most experienced with?
>> 3. Are you familiar with any information architecture methodologies?
>> Which ones?
>> 4. What usability/UI design methods would you like to know more about
>> or are least experienced with?
>> 5. Have you taught any courses or seminars in usability or user
>> interface design? What topics did you cover in the course?
>> 6. Have you ever been involved in determining user requirements for a
>> web application or desktop application? What methods did you use to
>> determine these requirements and what was your involvement in the process?
>> 7. Describe how you have marketed or evangelized user centered design
>> or user experience design in your current position? How would
>>you market it
>> if you were the first usability or user experience design
>>professional in a
>> company?
>> 8. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a style guide?
> > If you have worked on a style guide, describe your method for
>developing it.
>> 9. How have you addressed issues of user interface consistency across
>> products in your current position?
>> 10. In your current role, what percentage of time do you spend in
>> evaluation versus design?
> > 11. What have/can you do to make usability testing in a lab
>> environment as realistic as possible?
>> 12. How much experience do you have recruiting external customers for
>> evaluation or design activities? Have you done group or individual user
>> focus sessions?
>> 13. What steps have you taken to convince a recalcitrant developer to
>> listen to your advice?
>> 14. How would you explain the benefits of a user-centered design
>> approach to a project manager or program manager who is
>>unfamiliar with it?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~ will
>>
>> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
>> and what you innovate are design problems"
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> will evans
>> user experience architect
>> wkevans4 at gmail.com
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2008 12:22 AM, Anthony Colfelt <anthony at colfelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'm drafting the second part of an article on Hiring UX professionals
>> > for Boxes and Arrows at the moment and researching people's thoughts
>> > on the all important axis of personality when hiring UX folk.
>> >
>> > Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests like
>> > Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or working
>> > with others in your discipline?
>> >
>> > When thinking about the individual streams of Research, Information
>> > Architecture, Interaction Design, Graphic Design and Writing, do you
>> > reckon each of these should display any particular personality
>> > attributes as you might find in typing tests like Myers Briggs?
>> >
>> > The obvious answer is "Well, that depends on your context". But I
>> > thought it would make an interesting discussion point here and then
>> > summarized in the article. What are your thoughts?
>> >
>> > Anthony Colfelt
>> >
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
>> > February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
>> > Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>> >
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>> >
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
>> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
>> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>________________________________________________________________
>*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
>February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
>Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

--

----------------
Katie Albers
katie at firstthought.com

25 Jan 2008 - 12:50pm
SemanticWill
2007

On Jan 25, 2008 12:35 PM, Katie Albers <katie at firstthought.com> wrote:

> And along the same lines:
> "I'm a Libra with Pisces rising and
> moon in Sagitarius" only less specific.
>
> Katie

Oh - your a Libra? Well then clearly you are qualified to run the operations
side of our e-commerce site. If you were a Pisces, you would be better at
designing the web application forms and administering the MySQL database.

>
>
> At 6:45 AM -0500 1/25/08, Chauncey Wilson wrote:
> >Will's response is quite elegant and right on the mark. Personality
> >tests like the MB or many others often peg people as having a
> >particular disposition and ignore the fact that personality interacts
> >strongly with situational factors. Think about how we may be quite
> >different personas in different situations -- I'm very shy at cocktail
> >parties and avoid them as much as possible but I can be quite
> >theatrical in front of a good audience -- two quite different
> >behaviors in social situations. If you dig into the MB or read
> >reviews by serious academics, you will find that it has questionable
> >validation. In the early 1970s, there was a major debate in the
> >social psychology field over the predictability of personality tests
> >(you take the test and then correlate some type of performance with
> >the score) and the amout of variance attributed to personality was
> >very low (say in the range of 5-17% of behavior could be attributed to
> >personality). There is some interaction of personality with context
> >as my earlier example pointed out and there is some predictability
> >with some personality tests, but not all that much. The debate of
> >personality versus situation was between Daryl Bem and Walter Mischel
> >(two brilliant fellows in personality and social psychology).
> >
> >So, given the low correlation between performance and personality
> >scores, I would consider them dangerous (and the labels they put on
> >people something to avoid). I've been in several workshops where these
> >types of tests are given and the group as a whole latches on to the
> >scores and descriptions of the "personality" and even with moderators
> >who caution not to take the scores too seriously, the next 3 hours are
> >a discussion of the scores and how they are strong predictors of job
> >performance when in fact, they are not.
> >
> >I was the "victim" once of a company that wanted to use an MB-like
> >test to support decisions about management and promotion. Most senior
> >managers balked and the company withdrew the test as a basic for
> >promotion. I was ready to quit if forced to take the test.
> >
> >Chauncey
> >
> >On Jan 25, 2008 5:51 AM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'll weigh in, although my answers are obviously highly subjective.
> When
> >> evaluating candidates and building a team I would rather boil in a vat
> of
> >> hot molten lead than use a standardized test to inform anything,
> including
> >> who is fit to make coffee. Actually - more strongly - I think
> standardized
> >> tests are dangerous and serve only two purposes - to evaluate a
> candidates
> >> ability to take the test and score in some manner that I have a
> prejudice in
> >> thinking is the right personality matrix based on my own personality
> type;
> >> and to enrich and further the memetic influence of test makers and
> >> promoters. Myers Briggs is absolutely useless because it does not
> answer or
> >> provide insight into the key metrics I need in evaluating an IxD/IA/UX
> > > candidate which are:
> >> 1. Can the person design great experiences -- does knowing they are
> INTJ
> >> inform that? No.
> >> 2. Can the person defend their designs when faced with opposition?
> >> 3. Can the person take criticism?
> >> 4. Can the person collaborate in the design process?
> >> 5. Deliver on a deadline?
> > > 6. Show up to work?
> >>
> >> Besides the tests being highly subjective - they measure all the wrong
> >> things, and do not provide me as a hiring manager with any information
> that
> >> better informs my decision.
> >>
> >> Two interaction designers board trains. One leaves Chicago at 4pm
> traveling
> >> at 60mph, the other interaction designer (wearing black Dr. Martins)
> leaves
> >> Boston at 330pm traveling at 72 mph - both headed towards each other.
> 3
> >> hours later, the interaction designer on which train has created a
> more
> >> compelling user registration process?
> >>
> >> I have used many techniques for interviewing, evaluating, training and
> >> mentoring folks in our field - and I would say that standardized tests
> are
> >> the most onerous - nay - dangerous.
> >>
> >> I found this list of questions and have used variations of this in the
> >> interview process - I have added/modified it over recent years. This
> only
> >> covers general knowledge, etc - and doesn't tell me how the person
> will
> >> design or interact with a group - but at least it's far better than
> some
> >> Myers Briggs test:
> >>
> >> Fundamental IA/UX/UI Knowledge Interview Questions.
> >>
> >> 1. What two or three interaction design, information architecture or
> >> user experience design books would you recommend to your colleagues?
> Which
> >> has contributed the most to your understanding of our profession?
> >> 2. How do you keep your knowledge of user experience design and
> >> usability up to date?
> >> 3. How do you define when a website or application is "usable
> enough"?
> >> 4. Can you explain what heuristic evaluation is and what some of its
> >> strengths and weaknesses are?
> >> 5. What are some general guidelines for making web applications
> >> accessible to users with visual, hearing, or motor disabilities?
> >> 6. What courses or seminars have you taken on usability or user
> >> interface design?
> >> 7. Can you give a few examples of cognitive principles that should
> >> influence software design?
> >> 8. What are some of the differences in designing for the thin
> clients
> >> versus designing for print or a Windows or Macintosh thick client
> >> application?
> >> 9. What are some UI design principles that you would try to follow
> >> when designing web pages ?
> >> 10. How do you decide what tasks should be included in a usability
> >> test?
> >> 11. How would you conduct a competitive analysis of two applications
> >> or websites?
> >> 12. Describe how the user's physical environment can have an impact
> on
> >> the design of a website.
> >> 13. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of contextual
> >> inquiry or field studies for the design of a website or application?
> >>
> >> Experience in an IA/UX designer role
> >>
> >> 1. What are some of the ethical issues that can arise in a usability
> >> or user interface design position? Have you experienced any of these
> >> personally? What did you do to resolve/deal with these issues?
> >> 2. What usability methods are you most experienced with?
> >> 3. Are you familiar with any information architecture methodologies?
> >> Which ones?
> >> 4. What usability/UI design methods would you like to know more
> about
> >> or are least experienced with?
> >> 5. Have you taught any courses or seminars in usability or user
> >> interface design? What topics did you cover in the course?
> >> 6. Have you ever been involved in determining user requirements for
> a
> >> web application or desktop application? What methods did you use to
> >> determine these requirements and what was your involvement in the
> process?
> >> 7. Describe how you have marketed or evangelized user centered
> design
> >> or user experience design in your current position? How would
> >>you market it
> >> if you were the first usability or user experience design
> >>professional in a
> >> company?
> >> 8. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a style
> guide?
> > > If you have worked on a style guide, describe your method for
> >developing it.
> >> 9. How have you addressed issues of user interface consistency
> across
> >> products in your current position?
> >> 10. In your current role, what percentage of time do you spend in
> >> evaluation versus design?
> > > 11. What have/can you do to make usability testing in a lab
> >> environment as realistic as possible?
> >> 12. How much experience do you have recruiting external customers
> for
> >> evaluation or design activities? Have you done group or individual
> user
> >> focus sessions?
> >> 13. What steps have you taken to convince a recalcitrant developer
> to
> >> listen to your advice?
> >> 14. How would you explain the benefits of a user-centered design
> >> approach to a project manager or program manager who is
> >>unfamiliar with it?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ~ will
> >>
> >> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> >> and what you innovate are design problems"
> >> -------------------------------------------------------
> >> will evans
> >> user experience architect
> >> wkevans4 at gmail.com
> >> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 25, 2008 12:22 AM, Anthony Colfelt <anthony at colfelt.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > I'm drafting the second part of an article on Hiring UX
> professionals
> >> > for Boxes and Arrows at the moment and researching people's thoughts
> >> > on the all important axis of personality when hiring UX folk.
> >> >
> >> > Can you tell me whether you think that personality typing tests like
> >> > Myers Briggs or DISC are helpful to you in either hiring or working
> >> > with others in your discipline?
> >> >
> >> > When thinking about the individual streams of Research, Information
> >> > Architecture, Interaction Design, Graphic Design and Writing, do you
> >> > reckon each of these should display any particular personality
> >> > attributes as you might find in typing tests like Myers Briggs?
> >> >
> >> > The obvious answer is "Well, that depends on your context". But I
> >> > thought it would make an interesting discussion point here and then
> >> > summarized in the article. What are your thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Anthony Colfelt
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________________________________
> >> > *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> >> > February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> >> > Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________________________________
> >> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> >> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> >> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> >> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >> >
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> >> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> >> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> >> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> >> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> >> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >>
> >________________________________________________________________
> >*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> >February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> >Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> >Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> >List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> >List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------
> Katie Albers
> katie at firstthought.com
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

25 Jan 2008 - 11:39am
Gregory Sinner
2008

Have a look at http://www.quintcareers.com/STAR_interviewing.html

I do not represent this company nor receive any benefit from
referring you to them. I was subjected to and eventually used this
technique for interviewing job applicants. I found it to be
extremely useful IF you accept the premise that a person's work
performance in the future may be well anticipated by her or his prior
work experience and performance.

While I found the complete process overly complex and over the top
for my purposes, the process of getting a candidate to recall and
describe a real situation or task (ST), the action(A) that he or she
took and the results(R) of that action was very useful. Several
conversations on relevant topics; e.g, "Describe a situation where
you had to resolve an interpersonal dispute between two employees;
the action you took; and the results."

This gets the candidate out of the theoretical or abstract and into
the real world of what they did. Of course, people lie, so you need
to take it all with a grain of salt... as in all things human!

My $0.02....

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

25 Jan 2008 - 1:39pm
Joseph Selbie
2007

Years ago I asked all my employees if they would (voluntarily) take an
online survey/evaluation from a company called Performance Learning Systems.
Their survey/evaluation included Myers Briggs, from which I did not gain
much perspective, but it also included an approach usually called GASC. GASC
evaluates one's perceptual and organizational styles.

GASC is an acronym for Global, Abstract, Sequential and Concrete. An
individual's evaluation results are expressed as pairs of styles -- concrete
sequential, abstract sequential, abstract random/global, and concrete
random/global. Unlike Myer's Briggs, the four basic types (from all my
companies employees -- about 40 at the time) matched up really well with the
kinds of positions they held.

The correlation that most caught my attention was that all of my interaction
designers came out of the evaluation as concrete random/global. Other people
on my staff matched up well with their evaluation, but none of the other
correlations was a striking as that of my interaction designers.

I don't administer a formal evaluation to prospective interaction designers,
but I have learned to ask questions that reveal their perceptual and
organization styles that allows me to make a rough assessment.

Joseph Selbie
Founder, CEO Tristream
Web Application Design
http://www.tristream.com

25 Jan 2008 - 1:42pm
Benjamin Ho
2007

Mark Schraad said:
"I have taken the DISC analysis 4 times over the course of 7 years
and got radically different scores each time, of course that could
speak to mutliple personality disorder. Seriously though... the
results were interesting and sparked some valuable introspection...
but never felt anywhere close to conclusive as benchmarks."

Did you ever take any learning courses or seminars that further
explains the different facets? Did you take an assessment (in
booklet form) that takes into consideration your DISC blends?

While your circumstances may change over time and hence your ability
to relate with each side of the personality, the personality BLEND is
actually the most precise. Also, if you happen to have grown in
certain aspects of your life, your personality changes over time too.
For instance, I'm a CSID with lots of C and very little D. But I'm
improving on the D part, so much so that D can sometimes supersede C.

Here's something I also learned: "A person is their true self when
pressure and urgency is placed."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

25 Jan 2008 - 1:49pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Yes, each time the evaluation was reviewed in depth and I was given the complete report. They were part of sales and management coursework. Because it was my company - and we were paying for all of the reports, I also got an additional management report. I had not thought much about the overall process or corrollations until a couple of years ago when I was preparing to move. I found the reports and st down to read and compare them all. I think that was when I lost some faith in these sort of evaluation.

Mark

On Friday, January 25, 2008, at 01:42PM, "Benjamin Ho" <benoh2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Mark Schraad said:
>"I have taken the DISC analysis 4 times over the course of 7 years
>and got radically different scores each time, of course that could
>speak to mutliple personality disorder. Seriously though... the
>results were interesting and sparked some valuable introspection...
>but never felt anywhere close to conclusive as benchmarks."
>
>Did you ever take any learning courses or seminars that further
>explains the different facets? Did you take an assessment (in
>booklet form) that takes into consideration your DISC blends?
>
>While your circumstances may change over time and hence your ability
>to relate with each side of the personality, the personality BLEND is
>actually the most precise. Also, if you happen to have grown in
>certain aspects of your life, your personality changes over time too.
> For instance, I'm a CSID with lots of C and very little D. But I'm
>improving on the D part, so much so that D can sometimes supersede C.
>
>Here's something I also learned: "A person is their true self when
>pressure and urgency is placed."
>
>
>
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>Posted from the new ixda.org
>http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
>February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
>Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
>

25 Jan 2008 - 2:27pm
Jeff Howard
2004

Katie wrote:

> MB has 4 points of tracking and two possible values
> for each, for a total of 8 possible "personalities".

That's 16 combinations. Not eight. It'd be a lot higher if order
didn't matter. I guess when it boils down to it, there are really
only three types of people in the world. Those who can do math and
those who can't. :)

A recent book called Punching In: The Unauthorized Adventures of a
Front Line Employee by Alex Frankel covers some information on the
types of personality tests corporations employ. As he tells it, the
tests are disturbingly reliable in their ability to detect traces of
independent thought and weed them out.

// jeff

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

25 Jan 2008 - 2:30pm
Chauncey Wilson
2007

This is an interesting point. How long must a state last to be a
trait? To carry my example through, I can give a good lecture and be
very animated in the morning and then be a shy person at a cocktail
party in the evening. I am always shy at cocktail parties (introvert)
and generally animated when I lecture (extrovert). This distinction
is persistent, but neither lasts long so there are several types of
persistence - one is persistence of differences and the other is
persistence of a common trait.

There is another issue related to this. There is a human bias called
the fundamental attribution error where observers view the causes of a
person's behavior as overly based on personality whereas the person
him/herself views the causes of his/her behavior on context and
situation. So there is a strong actor/observer difference (and lots
of literature on this under the heading of attribution theory). So
the concept of "personality" and causes of behavior differs when
people are examing the causes of their own or others' behaviors. I've
always thought that applied attribution theory should be a required
course in business.

So even the notion of traits/states is affected by who is doing the observing.

Chauncey

On Jan 25, 2008 11:55 AM, Murli Nagasundaram <murliman at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a fundamental confusion here between two different things: STATES
> and TRAITS. Traits are persistent, States are transient. Every individual
> can be characterized has having certain persistent traits. Persistent
> doesn't mean they will never change -- it only means that they will remain
> quite stable over a long period of time, barring some signficant
> life-changing (including, traumatic) experiences. [If your TRAITS change
> frequently, you need some serious help.] States, on the other hand, like
> moods, change from moment to moment. MBTI and other 'personality style'
> instruments do not assess STATES but TRAITS.
>
> Also, whoever uses such instruments for recruitment is guilty of grossly
> misusing them and violating their fundamental purpose. Personality style
> instruments are best employed to gain insights into oneself. They should be
> answered honestly, if they are to be of any use - any instrument can be
> 'gamed' to give the desired results, but who benefits from this?
>
> I have used the MBTI for years with my students to help them understand
> themselves and be able to better relate to others and most of them love it.
> I also tell them -- and this is important that such instruments do not
> delimit the scope of an individuals behaviors because of the distinction
> between STATES and TRAITS. They should never be used for pigeonholing
> people. I don't require my students to share their MBTI profiles with
> others, but many do, voluntarily.
>
> -murli
>
> ==============================================================
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 5:15 PM, Chauncey Wilson <chauncey.wilson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Think about how we may be quite
> > different personas in different situations -- I'm very shy at cocktail
> > parties and avoid them as much as possible but I can be quite
> > theatrical in front of a good audience -- two quite different
> > behaviors in social situations.
>

25 Jan 2008 - 2:37pm
Katie Albers
2005

You're right. Sorry. The funny thing (to me, anyway) is that I've
actually done that figuring before and always got it right...sigh.
But the fundamental point remains.

Note to self: never try to "check" your math on 2 hours of sleep.

And to your point: Yes, I've often noticed that in addition to being
basically hocus pocus, the companies that employ personality tests
are nearly always looking for little cogs to fit in their little
gears and live in their little cubes and not get outside their
assigned space.

Katie
P.S. I always heard there are 10 kind of people in the world. Those
who get binary and those who don't :)

At 11:27 AM -0800 1/25/08, Jeff Howard wrote:
>Katie wrote:
>
>> MB has 4 points of tracking and two possible values
>> for each, for a total of 8 possible "personalities".
>
>That's 16 combinations. Not eight. It'd be a lot higher if order
>didn't matter. I guess when it boils down to it, there are really
>only three types of people in the world. Those who can do math and
>those who can't. :)
>
>A recent book called Punching In: The Unauthorized Adventures of a
>Front Line Employee by Alex Frankel covers some information on the
>types of personality tests corporations employ. As he tells it, the
>tests are disturbingly reliable in their ability to detect traces of
>independent thought and weed them out.
>
>// jeff
>
>
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>Posted from the new ixda.org
>http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
>February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
>Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

--

----------------
Katie Albers
katie at firstthought.com

25 Jan 2008 - 3:36pm
Todd Warfel
2003

On Jan 25, 2008, at 9:41 AM, W Evans wrote:

> No interview questions, portfolio, or tests would have picked up
> this unique skill set of hers.

This is something that a profiling test like DISC could help with.
Just remember, they are all tools. Use them carefully and in
combination.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

25 Jan 2008 - 3:37pm
Todd Warfel
2003

It can also speak to how you mature over time :).

On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:

> I have taken the DISC analysis 4 times over the course of 7 years
> and got radically different scores each time, of course that could
> speak to mutliple personality disorder. Seriously though... the
> results were interesting and sparked some valuable introspection...
> but never felt anywhere close to conclusive as benchmarks.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

25 Jan 2008 - 3:43pm
SemanticWill
2007

I tend to be introspective, introverted and perceptive in the morning -
catatonic in the afternoon, and extroverted, quick to joke, and judgmental
in the evening... I would have to take the test over 100 times, then do some
serious math on the results - full blown statistical analysis - and them
come up with some distribution of possible personality profiles based both
contextually and temporally.

On Jan 25, 2008 3:37 PM, Todd Zaki Warfel <lists at toddwarfel.com> wrote:

> It can also speak to how you mature over time :).
>
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:
>
> > I have taken the DISC analysis 4 times over the course of 7 years
> > and got radically different scores each time, of course that could
> > speak to mutliple personality disorder. Seriously though... the
> > results were interesting and sparked some valuable introspection...
> > but never felt anywhere close to conclusive as benchmarks.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd Zaki Warfel
> President, Design Researcher
> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
> ----------------------------------
> Contact Info
> Voice: (215) 825-7423
> Email: todd at messagefirst.com
> AIM: twarfel at mac.com
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
> ----------------------------------
> In theory, theory and practice are the same.
> In practice, they are not.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

25 Jan 2008 - 4:58pm
Jeff Seager
2007

The criteria used by the American Psychiatric Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual are more valid (but not entirely
valid, I'm afraid, even according to the professionals who use it
every day). Like Murli's emphasis on the difference between states
and traits, the DSM lists criteria for the various diagnoses and
emphasizes both the number of criteria and their *persistence over
time*.

Lay people often overlook the time element. On any given day, I could
be diagnosed with half the disorders listed if we threw out the
requirement of persistent symptoms!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

25 Jan 2008 - 1:02pm
jonesabi
2006

On 1/25/08, Katie Albers <katie at firstthought.com> wrote:

> MB has 4 points of tracking and two possible values for each, for a
> total of 8 possible "personalities".

Actually, it works out to 16 types: 2x2x2x2.

I have conflicting feelings about the Myers-Briggs. On one hand, I think it
is great for unobservant folks who might not be aware of the behaviors and
needs of others on their team. It is a good way to say "Hey, Jim actually
needs people to shut the heck up for a while so that he can feel comfortable
participating." in a friendly, everyone-participates sort of way.

On the other hand, I've seen it used as a crutch or an excuse for behavior
unbefitting professionals "Well, my type says that my confidence can be
mistaken for arrogance" reasoning doesn't overcome actual arrogance. And
I've been a part of full-day role-playing sessions that revolve around type.
Ugh.

-Abi Jones
HeatEatReview.com

25 Jan 2008 - 6:30pm
Jerome Ryckborst
2007

It's true, there are often several "answers" in these personality tests.

Years ago I wrote a personality test for a friend who was just entering the workforce as a psychiatrist, and she wanted to practice. I was her volunteer and the test seemed to have a zillion multiple-choice questions. Fill in the bubble with an HB pencil. My friend was applying for a job in a "hospital" (i.e. detention centre) for the criminally insane. After interpreting my responses, she read me the result -- a series of scaled ratings and a paragraph of sentences.

It rang very true. I was surprised at the accuracy. My friend told me that there had been a choice of sentences to include in the paragraph, and that the assessment includes both the written test and interviews. Of course, my friend knew me well, so she was able to choose the sentences that best reflected me without interviewing me.

Thoughts:
- A reliable personality test has written and interview components.
- Tests must be interpreted by a psych professional, not HR staff.
- The test I wrote (20 years ago) was designed to assess an abnormal
segment of the population. They were not designed for or normed on
the general population. Isn't their use to assess people's "fitness"
or aptitude for work questionable?

26 Jan 2008 - 1:15pm
Ryon Brown6
2008

I've found that DISC is most helpful when looked at not unnecessarily
as a measure of personality (which involves values) but is more a
measure of personal style in the workplace and how one approaches a
task/project/challenge.

My results showed that I'm a high "D" and a low "S". I think
they were spot-on. However, I agree that there is danger in treating
the results like a persona-builder for employees.

What is really needed is a DISC-type analysis tool for processes, not
people. THAT would be helpful. I think the result should be displayed
purely visually. Perhaps in the form of automobile types. One score
of a company's processes might yield an AMC Pacer, while the other
might yield an Audi A8.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

26 Jan 2008 - 2:36pm
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

One problem with psychology -- rather with the popular use of
psychology -- is that everbody believes themselves to be a lay
psychologist; the same doesn't hold true for medicine, for example, or
biology.

A related problem is the way technical terms become appropriated by
society, their meanings becoming distorted even while people believe
the distorted meanings to refer to the same original terms.
'Relativity' is one such term from physics that has become a part of
everyday speech but the common connotation is quite removed from its
technical definition.

I'm referring here to the terms 'extraversion' (rather than
'extroversion') and 'intraversion'. These terms are commonly taken to
mean -- the backslapping sociable behavior is extraversion, while
sitting alone in a corner reading a book is introversion. Not at all.
A Extravert TRAIT as understood by people in business) is understood
to mean that the individual draws energy through relatively intense
interaction with people. An Intravert TRAIT would mean that the
concerned individual feels drained by interacting with people. The
terms don't mean that a Intravert avoids people or that an Extravert
is relentlessly garrulous. One realizes that there are a variety of
activities one is required to engage in in order to live a productive
life, but there are some activities one prefers and thoroughly over
others. OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. Personality tests should not be
administered to children who are still developing their personalities
and may not show stable results for those under 25. But for older
persons, the results tend to become increasingly reliable --- provided
one is not gaming the instrument [which will happen if it is seen as
something to 'score' in].

Being 'animated' does not -- by itself -- an EXTRAVERT make. An
intraverted person can become very animated about an issue that she is
very passionate about. Being intraverted and passionate are not
mutually exclusive. In fact, the halls of academe are filled with
intraverted persons who aren't necessarily dull and boring in class.
Giving lectures doesn't demand 'extraversion'. Doing presentations in
the manner of Tom Peters and Steve Ballmer does demand 'extraversion'.

Likewise, being not very communicative at a cocktail party does not
imply that one is an 'intravert'. Perhaps the context doesn't excite
you very much.

It is possible that you are really an 'intravert'. Judge your
'intraversion' and 'extraversion' from how you feel about interacting
in small or large groups intensely with others, not necessarily on
matters that are your primary interest (such as IxD, for instance).
As for me, I enjoy solitude as much as the next person and many of my
deepest insights come from going out for a walk alone. But I can (and
do) pick up conversations with anybody, anywhere, without signficant
effort. And such interactions leave me energized rather than drained.
[Now, there are people and situations that drain me, but those are
exceptions.] I conclude, therefore, that I am an Extravert. And
that is exactly what the instrument tells me. I do my taxes, and run
through the numbers with a fine toothcomb. Heck, I have
qualifications in engineering, business, and information technology.
And I can do detailed, structured, technical stuff when required. But
I absolutely enjoy fuzzy, ambiguous, uncertain situations and tasks.

I must emphasize that the evaluation is to be done by oneself. One
may use the observations of others as additional data points to either
reinforce or refute one's position. And by aggregating a lot of such
anecdotal data, one can get close to the 'truth', whatever that might
be.

There is another issue relating to the 'attribution error' point that
you make. Some individuals -- and personality styles -- tend to be
better at accurately understanding themselves than others. Howard
Gardner calls this 'intrapersonal intelligence.' Both Gardner and the
MBTI have been trashed by 'fine scholars everywhere' as well as
sneering skeptics. Nevertheless, a lot of very intelligent and
reasonable people (and not just those that read the National Inquirer,
Readers Digest and People) find a lot of face validity in both
Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences and the MBTI (and other
personality tests).

Always keep in mind George Box's dictum: All models are wrong. Some
are useful. And Richard Hamming's advice: The purpose of computing is
insight, not numbers.

Insight is what we're looking for. Personality style instruments are
not accurate, but accuracy is not their purpose, but insight. And a
model. And who doesn't use models.

--
murli nagasundaram, ph.d. | www.murli.com | murli at murli.com | +91 99
02 69 69 20

26 Jan 2008 - 3:21pm
Troy Gardner
2008

RE: Extraverted and Introverted.

I feel these are badly defined terms, social
introversion/extroversion, introverted/extroverted thinking and
problem solving, and introspection and empathy of others are very
different, and very context dependent.

RE: MBTI
Trying to capture the vast world of human behaviors into 16 boxes is
at best a gross approximation.

But if you're talking to a person, and need to approximately describe
them it has utility...at least more predictive utility than
astrological signs.

Troy (INTX btw)

26 Jan 2008 - 3:46pm
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

Approximations work pretty well even in the hard sciences. in fact,
science chugs along merrily for hundreds of years with inaccurate
models, making real progress, before more accurate models come along
-- and as a bonus, you don't have to trash all the progress you have
made.

Outside of the physical sciences - in the social sciences, humanities
and the arts -- exactitude is not even an available option;
approximation is all you that can attain. And in fact, any attempt to
be exact is not only sisyphean, but completely counterproductive
because meaning is actually generated holistically, at the level of
approximations. Perfectly accurate descriptions are reductionist and
necessarily wrong.

-m (ENFP btw -- but you might have guessed that already! ;-))

On Jan 27, 2008 1:51 AM, Troy Gardner <troy at troyworks.com> wrote:
> RE: Extraverted and Introverted.
>
> I feel these are badly defined terms, social
> introversion/extroversion, introverted/extroverted thinking and
> problem solving, and introspection and empathy of others are very
> different, and very context dependent.
>
> RE: MBTI
> Trying to capture the vast world of human behaviors into 16 boxes is
> at best a gross approximation.
>
> But if you're talking to a person, and need to approximately describe
> them it has utility...at least more predictive utility than
> astrological signs.
>
> Troy (INTX btw)
>
--
murli nagasundaram, ph.d. | www.murli.com | murli at murli.com | +91 99
02 69 69 20

27 Jan 2008 - 12:25pm
Izabella Tabarovsky
2008

Hi All,

This is not necessarily my forum, as I'm not involved in this
particular industry, but I'm a work/life coach who's used MBTI very
successfully for many, many years, and I wanted to contribute to the
discussion, since the thread came across my desktop.

I'm always amazed at the vitriol that is frequently heaped up on
MBTI. I find so much of it coming from a poorly informed
perspective, from people who don't fully understand the instrument
and the thinking behind it or have taken it in a way that cannot
support their best needs.

When administered under appropriate circumstances and verified and
interpreted by a qualified professional %u2013 which is the way it
was always meant to be %u2013 MBTI can be a truly eye-opening
experience, a real revelation in terms of understanding yourself and
others. The fact that it has for decades been %u2013 and still
remains - the gold standard in personality self-assessment testifies
to that.

So why the complaints? One of the reasons, I believe, has to do with
the fact that MBTI was never meant to be taken in the way so many
people do it nowadays - online, with quick, cut-and-dry personality
descriptions and without the supporting services of a qualified MBTI
counsellor. MBTI is a self-reporting instrument, and psychology
fully recognizes the personal bias that can creep into these.
That's where work with a qualified professional becomes extremely
important - to help you verify your type, identify your best-fit
type, and make the results relevant to your particular situation.

And I'm not even talking about the proliferation of fakes -
assessments that claim to be MBTI but, in fact, aren't. There is
only one place that I would recommend for taking the assessment
online, and it%u2019s at www.mbticomplete.com. (No, I don%u2019t get
commissions from them.) This is administered by the actual MBTI
people, who know what they are doing and are applying all the latest
research to the tool and its interpretation. It will cost you
$59.95, but you%u2019ll get the real thing, and you%u2019ll actually
be taken through the explanation of what each reported preference
means in real life, as well as through the type verification process.
Even then, I don%u2019t believe it%u2019s a substitute for one-on-one
work with a counselor.

Another problem arises when the results are used in a less than
appropriate manner. To use MBTI to determine an individual%u2019s
suitability for a job or ability to perform is absolutely
unacceptable, and the ethical rules for MBTI administrators are
unequivocal on that. There are so many factors that determine one's
success on the job that you just can't rely on a simple personality
assessment of any kind.

Finally, I%u2019d like to correct one of the posters above, who said
that MBTI was about identifying personality traits. MBTI does not
actually measure personality traits, nor does it predict behavior.
The only thing it identifies is very broad patterns in which we
collect information about the world around us and the way we make
decisions on that information. The actual composition of traits of
within those patterns (i.e., kind, aggressive, compassionate,
domineering, etc.) is, of course, unpredictable and completely unique
to every individual in question.

What MBTI is, is an excellent tool (one of many), which, when used
properly, can help us gain a better understanding of who we are. Once
we have that understanding, we are empowered to make more informed
choices about how we want to be in the world, rather than simply
responding to circumstances in a conditioned, poorly-informed way.
It is about helping us to best use our unique gifts to benefit
ourselves and those around us. That%u2019s all there is to it.

I hope this was helpful in some way.

Best wishes to all.

Izabella Tabarovsky
www.projectcreativevision.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://gamma.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

27 Jan 2008 - 9:03pm
Troy Gardner
2008

We agree about the dangers of self-assessment, but having others
measure is just as prone to making other mistakes, in particular the
context of testing may/or may not translate into other contexts (work,
love, play, family).

Having developed personalty tests, I don't think that any 4 letter
metrics, is sufficiently detailed to describe anything but gross
behavior, but it's still quite powerful for 70% accurate.

>To use MBTI to determine an individual%u2019s
>suitability for a job or ability to perform is absolutely
>unacceptable,

While I agree it cannot be used solely, in conjunction with
IQ, EQ + SocialQ it can be used to determine how long a person will be
happy in any given position for a long duration. Of course if that's
long enough ...then you're right anything goes. There is a good deal
of research indicating the attraction of types to careers.

>nor does it predict behavior.

This doesn't match my experience, else people wouldn't be using it to
'please understand me' ;). While this may not generalize to all types,
most of my friends are predominately *NT*'s and despite coming from
all over the place, show remarkably similar approaches to handling
problems, communicating and worldviews, that are distinctly different
from non NT's.

27 Jan 2008 - 10:39pm
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

I find that the MBTI does predict one's approach to problem solving
and interaction with others. Or rather, the MBTI codifies behaviors
and perspectives that we generally expect from an individual.

-m

On Jan 28, 2008 7:33 AM, Troy Gardner <troy at troyworks.com> wrote:

>
> >nor does it predict behavior.
>
> This doesn't match my experience, else people wouldn't be using it to
> 'please understand me' ;). While this may not generalize to all types,
> most of my friends are predominately *NT*'s and despite coming from
> all over the place, show remarkably similar approaches to handling
> problems, communicating and worldviews, that are distinctly different
> from non NT's.

28 Jan 2008 - 8:29am
Chauncey Wilson
2007

> When administered under appropriate circumstances and verified and
> interpreted by a qualified professional %u2013 which is the way it
> was always meant to be %u2013 MBTI can be a truly eye-opening
> experience, a real revelation in terms of understanding yourself and
> others. The fact that it has for decades been %u2013 and still
> remains - the gold standard in personality self-assessment testifies
> to that.

Are there well-designed validation studies showing that the
understanding of yourself and others based on MBTI results produces
positive gains (reducing conflict or improving communication for
example) over time?

If there is an effect from the MBTI, who long does it last?

Chauncey

28 Jan 2008 - 9:24am
SemanticWill
2007

Astrology and Tarot cards - administered by a professional, can also be
truly eye-opening, and reveal really interesting things about myself and
others - but it's still a parlor game best left in the salons of debutantes
and pedants on the Upper East Side. It's far beyond the simple, less than
dangerous pseudo science of social psychology - where theories, concepts,
tests do not effect real people and do not cost real money. When investors
entrust me with delivering shareholder value - I am not going to make
strategic staffing decisions based on snake oil and voodoo. MBTI will not
tell me whether a person is a fantastic IA capable of parsing vast amounts
of data into a meaningful taxonomy. It will not help me find that magic
element that makes a person a great interaction designer.

I have taken these tests - i know companies that spent *ALOT* of money on
professionally trained consultants - my first job out of college at an
investment bank - senior management spent close to $400,000 to have the
entire company tested. There was no net impact by any measurable metric by
which to ascertain whether that money led to any measurable impact, ROI, or
increased shareholder value.

On Jan 28, 2008 8:29 AM, Chauncey Wilson <chauncey.wilson at gmail.com> wrote:

> > When administered under appropriate circumstances and verified and
> > interpreted by a qualified professional %u2013 which is the way it
> > was always meant to be %u2013 MBTI can be a truly eye-opening
> > experience, a real revelation in terms of understanding yourself and
> > others. The fact that it has for decades been %u2013 and still
> > remains - the gold standard in personality self-assessment testifies
> > to that.
>
> Are there well-designed validation studies showing that the
> understanding of yourself and others based on MBTI results produces
> positive gains (reducing conflict or improving communication for
> example) over time?
>
> If there is an effect from the MBTI, who long does it last?
>
> Chauncey
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

28 Jan 2008 - 10:28am
Patricia Garcia
2007

I think Murli said it all.

I am reminded of a story I read on another list regarding MB. The
poster told of the story of her company sponsoring an employee event
where they took the MB and discussed it as a team. They than lined
up the people according to their 4-letter designation. On one side
were the extraverts, the other the intraverts. The poster goes on to
explain that she found it funny that over time, the intraverted side
slowely dwindled away as they were let go from the company replaced
by what seemd to the poster, extraverted folks.

This tool, just as many, in the hands of the ignorant is dangerous.
I don't think it's meant to be used for others to see your results,
but for insight, as others have said, about oneself.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25081

29 Jan 2008 - 9:58am
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

I'm simply astounded that an individual who considers himself to be a
User Experience professional views social psychology to be a pseudo
science. If someone has developed a mathematical or engineering
measure for the construct known as 'Experience', I am eager to be
educated.

Cheers,

murli

ps: BTW, I agree that the social sciences are a somewhat different
kind of science(s) than the physical sciences. But the philosophy of
science as applied in both instances is the same.

On Jan 28, 2008 7:54 PM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's far beyond the simple, less than
> dangerous pseudo science of social psychology - where theories, concepts,
> tests do not effect real people and do not cost real money.

30 Jan 2008 - 11:44am
Chauncey Wilson
2007

Social Psychology is a field with many solid theories, principles, and
empirical studies. The application of social psychology principles
can be seen in the work on Persuasive Techology by B. J. Fogg, the
work by Reeves and Nass reported in the Media Equation, and much work
on collaboration techologies (which has gone by many names including
CSCW, groupware social networking). Social psychology (though not
often referred to directly) has been in play since the early days of
the internet. When we discuss Web 2.0 technologies, the conversations
often get around to social issues with that are connected to social
psychology research and theory.

The field of social psychology contains many measures of experience
ranging from social interaction questionnaires to physiological
measures. When designers are designing products for collaboration,
they often discuss issues related to social psychology principles
(collective behavior, rumor transmission, attribution theory,
reputation management, self-revelation, and persuasion). some of the
fundamental research on attitudes and persuasion from the 1940s, 50s,
and 60s, if now being applied to social computing.

I think that awareness of social psychology principles should be a
requirement for designing any social computing system.

Chauncey

On Jan 29, 2008 9:58 AM, Murli Nagasundaram <murliman at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm simply astounded that an individual who considers himself to be a
> User Experience professional views social psychology to be a pseudo
> science. If someone has developed a mathematical or engineering
> measure for the construct known as 'Experience', I am eager to be
> educated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> murli
>
> ps: BTW, I agree that the social sciences are a somewhat different
> kind of science(s) than the physical sciences. But the philosophy of
> science as applied in both instances is the same.
>
>
> On Jan 28, 2008 7:54 PM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's far beyond the simple, less than
> > dangerous pseudo science of social psychology - where theories, concepts,
> > tests do not effect real people and do not cost real money.
>

31 Jan 2008 - 7:28am
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

Great examples there, Chauncey. My introduction to social psychology in the
context of information technology occurred a couple of decades ago through
the watershed article by Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler, "Reducing social
context cues: electronic mail in organizational communicationn." It was the
first study, if I recall, that thoroughly investigated why people engage in
flaming while online (even if they are perfectly polite face-to-face).
Social psych research also helped us in the design of an Electronic
Meeting/Brainstorming System called VisionQuest, back in the late 1980's.
[During the time when we were transitioning from command line to GUIs in the
Microsoft universe, most users found the DOS version far easier to use than
the Windows one, for this particular application. And there were sound
reasons for preferring DOS over Windows.]

One of the big (at the time) failures in the are of
Groupware/CSCW/Call-it-what-you-will was a product called The Coordinator
from Action Technologies, an outfit floated by Terry Winograd (of Stanford
Comp Sci) and his student Fernando Flores [they describe their research in
'Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation For Design".] A
lack of any proper understanding of Social Psych (by the designers) rather
than any technical or other usability problem led to the wholesale rejection
of this technology in places like Pacific Bell. Coordinator was, on paper,
an extremely useful group tool, founded on Speech Act Theory. It simply
didn't recognize the social undercurrents that might make people reluctant
to use it however useful it might be.

"I think that awareness of social psychology principles should be a
requirement for designing any social computing system."

Amen to that. And practically every application that involves interaction
with others, which includes most internet apps satisfy this description.

Murli

On Jan 30, 2008 10:14 PM, Chauncey Wilson <chauncey.wilson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Social Psychology is a field with many solid theories, principles, and
> empirical studies. The application of social psychology principles
> can be seen in the work on Persuasive Techology by B. J. Fogg, the
> work by Reeves and Nass reported in the Media Equation, and much work
> on collaboration techologies (which has gone by many names including
> CSCW, groupware social networking). Social psychology (though not
> often referred to directly) has been in play since the early days of
> the internet. When we discuss Web 2.0 technologies, the conversations
> often get around to social issues with that are connected to social
> psychology research and theory.
>
> The field of social psychology contains many measures of experience
> ranging from social interaction questionnaires to physiological
> measures. When designers are designing products for collaboration,
> they often discuss issues related to social psychology principles
> (collective behavior, rumor transmission, attribution theory,
> reputation management, self-revelation, and persuasion). some of the
> fundamental research on attitudes and persuasion from the 1940s, 50s,
> and 60s, if now being applied to social computing.
>
> I think that awareness of social psychology principles should be a
> requirement for designing any social computing system.
>
> Chauncey
>
> On Jan 29, 2008 9:58 AM, Murli Nagasundaram <murliman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm simply astounded that an individual who considers himself to be a
> > User Experience professional views social psychology to be a pseudo
> > science. If someone has developed a mathematical or engineering
> > measure for the construct known as 'Experience', I am eager to be
> > educated.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > murli
> >
> > ps: BTW, I agree that the social sciences are a somewhat different
> > kind of science(s) than the physical sciences. But the philosophy of
> > science as applied in both instances is the same.
> >
> >
> > On Jan 28, 2008 7:54 PM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's far beyond the simple, less than
> > > dangerous pseudo science of social psychology - where theories,
> concepts,
> > > tests do not effect real people and do not cost real money.
> >
>

31 Jan 2008 - 7:32am
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

Just wanted to add the following as required (hilarious) education for
anyone developing social apps:

http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/

or

http://www.flamewarriors.com/

Mike Reed, the creator, is unquestionably a genius.

-- Murli

31 Jan 2008 - 8:18am
Chauncey Wilson
2007

Hello Murli,

Your email brought back some interesting memories. In the 1980s, I
did some usability testing of the "Coordinator" at DEC and it was
viewed as too controlling. The group I worked with adapted the
concept to be more like a Supportinator where commitments were
tracked, but in a less dictatorial manner. The group I worked with
was led by John Whiteside who brought the concepts of usability
engineering and contextualism into the mainstream and was intrigued by
speech act theory. We read Winograd and Flores and took an entire
year to read Heidegger's Being and Time. Sara Kiesler has done
excellent work for almost two decades and was prescient about the
importance of social psychology to social computer systems of all
sorts. My introduction to social psychology came as a graduate
student in the 1970s where I was steeped in attribution theory,
exchange theory (important in online relationships and discussion
groups), and attitude research. My focus then was in the social
psychology of criminal victimization -- the study of discretion in the
criminal justice system. My professor and I published 3 book chapters
and many papers and presentations on the impact of social
psychological variables on crime reporting.

I think that a talk at the next IxDA conference on the important of
social psychology to interaction design would be a great topic. I
would enjoy talking about exchange theory in the context of electronic
relationships and communities. Some of the old work of Peter Blau,
the sociologist Homans, and others is quite applicable to the
exchanges that go on in interaction design.

Chauncey

On Jan 31, 2008 7:28 AM, Murli Nagasundaram <murliman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Great examples there, Chauncey. My introduction to social psychology in the
> context of information technology occurred a couple of decades ago through
> the watershed article by Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler, "Reducing social
> context cues: electronic mail in organizational communicationn." It was the
> first study, if I recall, that thoroughly investigated why people engage in
> flaming while online (even if they are perfectly polite face-to-face).
> Social psych research also helped us in the design of an Electronic
> Meeting/Brainstorming System called VisionQuest, back in the late 1980's.
> [During the time when we were transitioning from command line to GUIs in the
> Microsoft universe, most users found the DOS version far easier to use than
> the Windows one, for this particular application. And there were sound
> reasons for preferring DOS over Windows.]
>
> One of the big (at the time) failures in the are of
> Groupware/CSCW/Call-it-what-you-will was a product called The Coordinator
> from Action Technologies, an outfit floated by Terry Winograd (of Stanford
> Comp Sci) and his student Fernando Flores [they describe their research in
> 'Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation For Design".] A
> lack of any proper understanding of Social Psych (by the designers) rather
> than any technical or other usability problem led to the wholesale rejection
> of this technology in places like Pacific Bell. Coordinator was, on paper,
> an extremely useful group tool, founded on Speech Act Theory. It simply
> didn't recognize the social undercurrents that might make people reluctant
> to use it however useful it might be.
>
> "I think that awareness of social psychology principles should be a
> requirement for designing any social computing system."
>
> Amen to that. And practically every application that involves interaction
> with others, which includes most internet apps satisfy this description.
>
> Murli
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2008 10:14 PM, Chauncey Wilson <chauncey.wilson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Social Psychology is a field with many solid theories, principles, and
> > empirical studies. The application of social psychology principles
> > can be seen in the work on Persuasive Techology by B. J. Fogg, the
> > work by Reeves and Nass reported in the Media Equation, and much work
> > on collaboration techologies (which has gone by many names including
> > CSCW, groupware social networking). Social psychology (though not
> > often referred to directly) has been in play since the early days of
> > the internet. When we discuss Web 2.0 technologies, the conversations
> > often get around to social issues with that are connected to social
> > psychology research and theory.
> >
> > The field of social psychology contains many measures of experience
> > ranging from social interaction questionnaires to physiological
> > measures. When designers are designing products for collaboration,
> > they often discuss issues related to social psychology principles
> > (collective behavior, rumor transmission, attribution theory,
> > reputation management, self-revelation, and persuasion). some of the
> > fundamental research on attitudes and persuasion from the 1940s, 50s,
> > and 60s, if now being applied to social computing.
> >
> > I think that awareness of social psychology principles should be a
> > requirement for designing any social computing system.
> >
> > Chauncey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2008 9:58 AM, Murli Nagasundaram <murliman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm simply astounded that an individual who considers himself to be a
> > > User Experience professional views social psychology to be a pseudo
> > > science. If someone has developed a mathematical or engineering
> > > measure for the construct known as 'Experience', I am eager to be
> > > educated.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > murli
> > >
> > > ps: BTW, I agree that the social sciences are a somewhat different
> > > kind of science(s) than the physical sciences. But the philosophy of
> > > science as applied in both instances is the same.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 28, 2008 7:54 PM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It's far beyond the simple, less than
> > > > dangerous pseudo science of social psychology - where theories,
> concepts,
> > > > tests do not effect real people and do not cost real money.
> > >
> >
>

31 Jan 2008 - 10:12am
Murli Nagasundaram
2007

Chauncey, wow, I didn't realize there would be people on this list who might
even remember Coordinator, leave alone having tested it! I bow before
thee! Yes, I recall that the consensus was that it was 'Fascistware'. How
did Supportinator go, btw -- was it accepted, used? By making one's
responses (rather, the tags, right?) optional, did it dilute the utility of
the tool, making it a no-win proposition? I'm curious to know about
instances where the idea succeeded, and what was done (technically, and
otherwise) to make that possible.

Interesting that you mentioned Whiteside. I attended the session on
Usability Engineering at CHI '89 in Austin, TX conducted by John Whiteside,
John Bennett of IBM Almaden and Keith Butler of Boeing, and had great
conversations with them. I have the tutorial book with me by my side right
now! Pleasant memories. Where is John Whiteside now, incidentally? -- the
gutting of DEC's technical and research groups may have been financially
necessary, but was among the sadder events of the last century.

I'm wondering if -- and I never really reflected on this very deeply -- the
coming of the web and the spread of the GUI in the 1990's (with Windows 3.0)
displaced (at least temporarily) some of the great social psych work of the
1970's and 1980's which dealt less with issues relating to direct
interaction and more with substantive issues regarding how people relate to
each other through technology mediated interactions. Maybe it is indeed
time to bring it all back and one or more sessions/tracks at IxDA would be a
great idea. And of course, the theories you mention -- nothing more
practical, as one of my profs used to say, than a good theory.

Regards,

-murli

On Jan 31, 2008 6:48 PM, Chauncey Wilson <chauncey.wilson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Murli,
>
> Your email brought back some interesting memories. In the 1980s, I
> did some usability testing of the "Coordinator" at DEC and it was
> viewed as too controlling. The group I worked with adapted the
> concept to be more like a Supportinator where commitments were
> tracked, but in a less dictatorial manner. The group I worked with
> was led by John Whiteside who brought the concepts of usability
> engineering and contextualism into the mainstream and was intrigued by
> speech act theory. We read Winograd and Flores and took an entire
> year to read Heidegger's Being and Time. Sara Kiesler has done
> excellent work for almost two decades and was prescient about the
> importance of social psychology to social computer systems of all
> sorts. My introduction to social psychology came as a graduate
> student in the 1970s where I was steeped in attribution theory,
> exchange theory (important in online relationships and discussion
> groups), and attitude research. My focus then was in the social
> psychology of criminal victimization -- the study of discretion in the
> criminal justice system. My professor and I published 3 book chapters
> and many papers and presentations on the impact of social
> psychological variables on crime reporting.
>
> I think that a talk at the next IxDA conference on the important of
> social psychology to interaction design would be a great topic. I
> would enjoy talking about exchange theory in the context of electronic
> relationships and communities. Some of the old work of Peter Blau,
> the sociologist Homans, and others is quite applicable to the
> exchanges that go on in interaction design.
>
> Chauncey
>
> On Jan 31, 2008 7:28 AM, Murli Nagasundaram <murliman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Great examples there, Chauncey. My introduction to social psychology in
> the
> > context of information technology occurred a couple of decades ago
> through
> > the watershed article by Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler, "Reducing social
> > context cues: electronic mail in organizational communicationn." It was
> the
> > first study, if I recall, that thoroughly investigated why people engage
> in
> > flaming while online (even if they are perfectly polite face-to-face).
> > Social psych research also helped us in the design of an Electronic
> > Meeting/Brainstorming System called VisionQuest, back in the late
> 1980's.
> > [During the time when we were transitioning from command line to GUIs in
> the
> > Microsoft universe, most users found the DOS version far easier to use
> than
> > the Windows one, for this particular application. And there were sound
> > reasons for preferring DOS over Windows.]
> >
> > One of the big (at the time) failures in the are of
> > Groupware/CSCW/Call-it-what-you-will was a product called The
> Coordinator
> > from Action Technologies, an outfit floated by Terry Winograd (of
> Stanford
> > Comp Sci) and his student Fernando Flores [they describe their research
> in
> > 'Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation For Design".]
> A
> > lack of any proper understanding of Social Psych (by the designers)
> rather
> > than any technical or other usability problem led to the wholesale
> rejection
> > of this technology in places like Pacific Bell. Coordinator was, on
> paper,
> > an extremely useful group tool, founded on Speech Act Theory. It simply
> > didn't recognize the social undercurrents that might make people
> reluctant
> > to use it however useful it might be.
> >
> > "I think that awareness of social psychology principles should be a
> > requirement for designing any social computing system."
> >
> > Amen to that. And practically every application that involves
> interaction
> > with others, which includes most internet apps satisfy this description.
> >
> > Murli
> >
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2008 10:14 PM, Chauncey Wilson <chauncey.wilson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Social Psychology is a field with many solid theories, principles, and
> > > empirical studies. The application of social psychology principles
> > > can be seen in the work on Persuasive Techology by B. J. Fogg, the
> > > work by Reeves and Nass reported in the Media Equation, and much work
> > > on collaboration techologies (which has gone by many names including
> > > CSCW, groupware social networking). Social psychology (though not
> > > often referred to directly) has been in play since the early days of
> > > the internet. When we discuss Web 2.0 technologies, the conversations
> > > often get around to social issues with that are connected to social
> > > psychology research and theory.
> > >
> > > The field of social psychology contains many measures of experience
> > > ranging from social interaction questionnaires to physiological
> > > measures. When designers are designing products for collaboration,
> > > they often discuss issues related to social psychology principles
> > > (collective behavior, rumor transmission, attribution theory,
> > > reputation management, self-revelation, and persuasion). some of the
> > > fundamental research on attitudes and persuasion from the 1940s, 50s,
> > > and 60s, if now being applied to social computing.
> > >
> > > I think that awareness of social psychology principles should be a
> > > requirement for designing any social computing system.
> > >
> > > Chauncey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 29, 2008 9:58 AM, Murli Nagasundaram <murliman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > I'm simply astounded that an individual who considers himself to be
> a
> > > > User Experience professional views social psychology to be a pseudo
> > > > science. If someone has developed a mathematical or engineering
> > > > measure for the construct known as 'Experience', I am eager to be
> > > > educated.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > murli
> > > >
> > > > ps: BTW, I agree that the social sciences are a somewhat different
> > > > kind of science(s) than the physical sciences. But the philosophy
> of
> > > > science as applied in both instances is the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 28, 2008 7:54 PM, W Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > It's far beyond the simple, less than
> > > > > dangerous pseudo science of social psychology - where theories,
> > concepts,
> > > > > tests do not effect real people and do not cost real money.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Syndicate content Get the feed