Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6160Re: [agile-usability] Is your right brain active?

Expand Messages
  • Jon Kern
    May 14, 2009
      Interesting Larry...

      I have been subjected to numerous of these...
      MB (ENTP)
      MB-offshoot that I took with a therapist friend
      and a few others...

      Oft-times, my own results are a teeter-tottering between two poles. In
      one test, the instructor said most people align either in a vertical
      column or along the horizontal row -- I was on the diagonal <g>. In
      another, I was a strong Quick-Start, yet would take deep dives in being
      Data Driven.

      I just figured it was because I was weird... but maybe it was more due
      to the inability of the systems to fully describe my "type?"

      blog: http://technicaldebt.wetpaint.com
      twitter: http://twitter.com/JonKernPA

      Larry Constantine said the following on 5/13/09 7:19 AM:
      > Tim wrote:
      > >However, rather than rely on the pop-culture meaning of right/left
      > brain being thinking/feeling, I'd prefer to rely on the
      > Thinking/Feeling spectrum of the Myers Briggs survey - it's actually
      > based on some half-decent research (allbeit 50 odd years old now).<
      > I don’t mean to be the perpetual rain maker, but, this is just another
      > flavor of pop-culture psychobabble. The Myers-Briggs and its related
      > Kiersey Temperament Sorter are based on Jungian psychoanalytic theory,
      > which, along with Freudian psychoanalytic theory, is taken less and
      > less seriously these days. Most of the early personality theories,
      > even the ones for which reasonably reliable instruments were
      > developed, have largely been supplanted by evidenced-based personality
      > models, particularly the now generally accepted five-factor model.
      > Frankly, the MB and KTS are fun at a cocktail-party level (“I’ll tell
      > you my type if you’ll tell me yours” “Well, what can you expect from
      > an ISTJ”) and remain immensely popular in management circles (in part
      > because there are free versions of the KTS and no training, licensing,
      > or fees are required to use them, unlike the more industrial strength
      > instruments like the MMPI) and no doubt also owing in part to their
      > somewhat simplistic categorization of people into “types”. In any
      > case, they are not to be taken too seriously, certainly not compared
      > to the more recent findings in neuroscience and cognitive science—even
      > in their popularized packages.
      > Only Introversion-extraversion from the MB remains as a generally
      > accepted valid dimension of personality trait. As I’ve said before in
      > this and other forums, a psychometrically weak test with little or no
      > independent validity and based on unscientific theory is hardly a good
      > grounding for significant insight into ourselves and each other. Among
      > colleagues who work in this field, MB and KTS “types” are regarded as
      > little better than astrology, garnering comments resembling the
      > oft-quoted /Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy/—“Mostly harmless.”
      > (Although there is debate about that.)
      > Amidst all that rhetorical rain, I confess I have learned things from
      > using the KTS, but I suspect this has more to do with the process and
      > context within which it was used than from the validity of the
      > typology or the measurement instrument. I have seen completely
      > discredited “tests,” such as the Luscher Color Test, yield interesting
      > and useful results in the hands of skilled therapists.
      > But, we are getting pretty far afield from agility or usability…
      > --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
      > Director, Lab:USE Laboratory for Usage-centered Software Engineering
      > (www.labuse.org)
      > Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
      > University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic