Please note at the outset that I am assuming individuals who hold the various views and perspectives that are outlined below have positive intent (as I do). My experience is that most individuals who are passionate about a point of view are sincere and believe that their insights will benefit everyone, if they could only see the value of their insights.
Not so long ago I was invited to talk at a forum at a large public university on the “evidence” for various personality models and how these models inform perspectives on development. One of my companies at the time was certifying professionals in several personality assessments, which were based on different models of personality. As the forum unfolded, my co-panelists unloaded all critical cannons on the MBTI® assessment as an unfounded, unscientific, bad psychological model, and I was asked to defend it. Every single criticism of the MBTI®, using the 1984 Manual, lobbied at me was reasonable and analytically sound.
I asked my astute co-panelists if they would accept the premise that many personality assessments and many personality models have relative evidence of reliability and validity. In other words, when looking at the statistics associated with reliability and validity, assessments made available by independent publishers were about the same. They agreed that the evidence would suggest this true. (We could go to any psychometric text and find that assessment tools report general reliability correlations between .70 to .90, depending on conditions. Validity correlations vary from .15 to .70, depending on the variables involved. Please just know that there are generally accepted standards we should use to evaluate tools and models. The fact that there are no “perfect” 1.0 correlations is good news.)
I then asked if they agreed that the Item Response Statistical model is widely accepted in the social sciences as the most mathematically powerful and predictive model of measuring behavior ever created, and they all said yes. What then are we to do, I suggested, with their criticism of the MBTI when its newest version is based entirely on Item Response Theory statistics? In other words, if the MBTI was as useless as they suggested, then does that mean the statistical model on which it is currently based also useless and inaccurate? Does this mean that the statistics based on a national random sample are to be put in the waste basket?
Silence ensued.
Math provides us with evidence and probable useful insights. There are no absolutes when measuring human behavior—just better approximations. Anyone pursuing exactness in the measurement of behavior is on a fool’s errand.
Not so long ago I was invited to talk at a forum at a large public university on the “evidence” for various personality models and how these models inform perspectives on development. One of my companies at the time was certifying professionals in several personality assessments, which were based on different models of personality. As the forum unfolded, my co-panelists unloaded all critical cannons on the MBTI® assessment as an unfounded, unscientific, bad psychological model, and I was asked to defend it. Every single criticism of the MBTI®, using the 1984 Manual, lobbied at me was reasonable and analytically sound.
I asked my astute co-panelists if they would accept the premise that many personality assessments and many personality models have relative evidence of reliability and validity. In other words, when looking at the statistics associated with reliability and validity, assessments made available by independent publishers were about the same. They agreed that the evidence would suggest this true. (We could go to any psychometric text and find that assessment tools report general reliability correlations between .70 to .90, depending on conditions. Validity correlations vary from .15 to .70, depending on the variables involved. Please just know that there are generally accepted standards we should use to evaluate tools and models. The fact that there are no “perfect” 1.0 correlations is good news.)
I then asked if they agreed that the Item Response Statistical model is widely accepted in the social sciences as the most mathematically powerful and predictive model of measuring behavior ever created, and they all said yes. What then are we to do, I suggested, with their criticism of the MBTI when its newest version is based entirely on Item Response Theory statistics? In other words, if the MBTI was as useless as they suggested, then does that mean the statistical model on which it is currently based also useless and inaccurate? Does this mean that the statistics based on a national random sample are to be put in the waste basket?
Silence ensued.
Math provides us with evidence and probable useful insights. There are no absolutes when measuring human behavior—just better approximations. Anyone pursuing exactness in the measurement of behavior is on a fool’s errand.
That being suggested, however, does not mean that the statistics used are necessarily appropriate to the theory. For example, using IRT to establish the presence of four dimensions of personality type (E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) does not address the core heart of the theory that eight mental processes are orderly being used to provide consistency in approaches to everyday experience. Regrettably, there are very few studies that affirm the set of propositions about psychological type suggested by the MBTI® tool—-again, plenty to support the four scales, and a scant number of studies to support the whole type frame. (And we know there are plenty of believers in this framework who don't care for evidence--but then why should the use of social sciences be any different from the rest of our public lives?)
Psychological type proposes that human beings gather perceptions and make judgments. Not much to argue about there. The theory further argues that out of necessity with the way the brain works, individuals tend to specialize, some more attuned to perceiving and some more engaged in judging situations. Easy enough to see this is true. Ever been in a meeting when someone kept wanting to know more information and another person was furiously seeking close and action?
Finally, the model of psychological type, on which multiple tools are based, including the Pearman Personality Integrator®, the behavior pattern survey in the iPad Applications TEAMOSITY, Relate!, or CAREERFITOSITY, or the self-discovery frame provided by Matrix Insights, argues that eight processes for perceiving and judging life situations individuals experience, and the more we understand those functions and come to use them with intentionality, the greater our effectiveness and well-being. Who would argue against the idea that being conscious of and being more intentional about using various mental resources could be a bad thing?
Psychological type proposes that the blending of these processes to perceive and judge produce predictable patterns in the way people see and act on life situations. All of personality research is based on the notion of persistent and consistent patterns of behavior. Robust mathematical models show us that our self-awareness and our intentional use of our natural psychological resources produce positive outcomes.
Math, through the framing of statistical models, gives us strong hints of what is typically true of human behavior. It is a wonderful tool for helping us approach answer basic questions about who we are and how we can pursue self-actualization to maximize whatever gifts we have. And it is a non-discriminatory model in that it shows no favorites. Only the use of mathematical tools reveal the biases of the proponent of a particular perspective. It is important to know that the appropriate math has been used—that studies of reliability and validity have been completed on any assessment we use. But that is not the end of the story nor is it what is ultimately mission critical in the story.
Psychological type proposes that human beings gather perceptions and make judgments. Not much to argue about there. The theory further argues that out of necessity with the way the brain works, individuals tend to specialize, some more attuned to perceiving and some more engaged in judging situations. Easy enough to see this is true. Ever been in a meeting when someone kept wanting to know more information and another person was furiously seeking close and action?
Finally, the model of psychological type, on which multiple tools are based, including the Pearman Personality Integrator®, the behavior pattern survey in the iPad Applications TEAMOSITY, Relate!, or CAREERFITOSITY, or the self-discovery frame provided by Matrix Insights, argues that eight processes for perceiving and judging life situations individuals experience, and the more we understand those functions and come to use them with intentionality, the greater our effectiveness and well-being. Who would argue against the idea that being conscious of and being more intentional about using various mental resources could be a bad thing?
Psychological type proposes that the blending of these processes to perceive and judge produce predictable patterns in the way people see and act on life situations. All of personality research is based on the notion of persistent and consistent patterns of behavior. Robust mathematical models show us that our self-awareness and our intentional use of our natural psychological resources produce positive outcomes.
Math, through the framing of statistical models, gives us strong hints of what is typically true of human behavior. It is a wonderful tool for helping us approach answer basic questions about who we are and how we can pursue self-actualization to maximize whatever gifts we have. And it is a non-discriminatory model in that it shows no favorites. Only the use of mathematical tools reveal the biases of the proponent of a particular perspective. It is important to know that the appropriate math has been used—that studies of reliability and validity have been completed on any assessment we use. But that is not the end of the story nor is it what is ultimately mission critical in the story.
I believe that the framing that psychological type provides is a positive model of human behavior and human development. The model suggests that four windows of perceiving experience and four processes for decision making can be easily seen and understood. The model further proposes that the more intentional we are about using these windows of perception and processes for decision making, the more sound our judgments and choices will be. What is there to object to? It is a framework that optimistically encourages deeper self-awareness and personal choice.
My blog posts cover a range of developmental issues you might find interesting: http://pearmanpersonality.blogspot.com/?view=flipcard
To explore a number of personality and development lenses (Performance Five, Psychological Type, Interaction Styles, EQ) , explore the assessments available at www.matrixinsights.com
To examine the rich material of the Pearman Personality Integrator, see https://tap.mhs.com/Pearman.aspx
To examine the rich material of the Pearman Personality Integrator, see https://tap.mhs.com/Pearman.aspx
You can get our book the People Skills handbook at http://www.leadership-systems.com/product/people-skills-handbook/
The Pearman Personality Integrator® is the registered trademark of MHS, Inc. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator® is the registered trademark of the Myers Briggs Trust.
Comments
Post a Comment