6160Re: [agile-usability] Is your right brain active?
- May 14, 2009Interesting Larry...
I have been subjected to numerous of these...
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
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?"
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
> Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
> University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>