Skip to main content

Math and Insights for Human Development

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.
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.
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     
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

Popular posts from this blog

Personality Brokers: A Point of View

Engaging. Informative. Speculative. Illuminating. Irritating. Thoughtful. Mistaken. These terms describe  Merve Emre’s new book, The Personality Brokers (in the US) and What’s Your Type? (in Australia and Europe), published by Doubleday.  Emre brilliantly used sources in multiple places to support her historical rendering of the family environment and passions of the mother-daughter duo who are responsible for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® assessment.  She managed to expose a host of attitudes, reflective of the time, and of the unique character of the individuals involved.   Emre’s real goal, however, is to use the popularity of the MBTI® tool to expose issues in the use of psychological tools in organizations.  She is right to point out that using personality based tools for selection and promotion is problematic and typically doesn’t end well for the individual or the organization.  Noting that individuals are being improperly evaluated from a self-report tool is precisely

A Judgment System: Thinking

Thinking—Logical, Analytical, and Outcome Oriented (or so the rumor goes) Ever wonder what all the fuss was about when it comes to being analytical?  Some folks are very basic in their use of thinking—-meaning they are quick to see gaps or problems and they think their job is done.  A more complex use of thinking is to begin with a perspective of multi-variate factors and exploring the underlying and intersecting systems in a situation.  It isn’t so much about finding the gaps as understanding the logic of factors, or as Jung put it, “following its own law s, [Thinking] brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another” (pp:830, page 481).  You have these ideas that you connect in a way that seems logical. Judging functions serve to provide a way to evaluate information and experiences so there is a basis for action or conclusion.  While the completeness and quality of all decisions begin with the kind of information that is used which the perceiving

The Untethered Personality

Developing an Untethered Personality Have you ever experienced arguing strongly for an issue and for what you called undeniable facts only later to discover you were entirely wrong?  Have you ever had an emotional reaction to a situation and you said or reacted in a way which was entirely out of your control and you later regretted?  Have you ever met someone for the first time and instantaneously greatly disliked (or liked) and had no rationale or explicit reason for the reaction?   In each of these situations you experienced being “had” by a point of view, emotion, belief, or hunch.  When something “has” you, it is like being in a bubble such that you don’t take in other information or see other possibilities or options.  You are tethered to this reaction and perspective. The perspective, emotion, belief, or hunch controls your perceptions and reactions rather than you being in conscious control.    In a profound way, your conscious self is the “subject” of the perspectiv