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

user story mapping examples?

Expand Messages
  • izabel_blue
    Hello! I ve been reading lots of Jeff Patton s work on User Story Mapping and am going to try to introduce it into my organisation next week. I ve read
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 24, 2009
      Hello!

      I've been reading lots of Jeff Patton's work on User Story Mapping and am going to try to introduce it into my organisation next week. I've read everything I can find online but I'm just wondering - does anyone out there have a good clear JPG or GIF of a user story map that I could show my team as an example? I'm really looking for one with real data in it ideally!

      Oh, and any tips and tricks on making this technique work?

      Kind regards,

      Elizabeth (aka Izabel_blue)
    • Jon Kern
      Kind of a key for UX, domain modeling, architecting, and other creative activities http://technicaldebt.com/archives/2009_05.html#000872 A fun little test for
      Message 2 of 16 , May 6, 2009
        Kind of a key for UX, domain modeling, architecting, and other creative
        activities

        http://technicaldebt.com/archives/2009_05.html#000872

        A fun little test for you :-)

        jon
        blog: http://technicaldebt.wetpaint.com
        twitter: http://twitter.com/JonKernPA
      • Larry Constantine
        Jon, Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed test has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The give-away
        Message 3 of 16 , May 7, 2009
          Jon,

          Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
          has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
          give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which doctors?
          How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
          anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
          "right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
          "right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
          "left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
          "Find Waldo" type pastimes.

          I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
          pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned in
          psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
          much subtler than the simplistic popular models.

          --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
          Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
          University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
        • Adrian Howard
          On 7 May 2009, at 12:11, Larry Constantine wrote: [snip] ... [snip] Hurrah! Somebody beat me to my usual rant on this topic :-) Adrian -- delicious.com/adrianh
          Message 4 of 16 , May 8, 2009
            On 7 May 2009, at 12:11, Larry Constantine wrote:
            [snip]
            > I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although
            > still
            > pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely
            > abandoned in
            > psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out
            > to be
            > much subtler than the simplistic popular models.
            [snip]

            Hurrah! Somebody beat me to my usual rant on this topic :-)

            Adrian

            --
            delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adrianh@...
          • Jon Kern
            Thanks Larry/(Adrian), You are entitled to your bean raining/usual rants -- as long as you took the test . One of the things I wish I added to the poll... *
            Message 5 of 16 , May 8, 2009
              Thanks Larry/(Adrian),

              You are entitled to your bean raining/usual rants -- as long as you took
              the test <g>.

              One of the things I wish I added to the poll...

              * Are you in a technical field? Y/N
              * What were you doing in the 15 minutes prior to the test?
              o Technical problem-solving sort of work
              o Not much: relaxing, light reading, eating, etc

              Because, whether it is based on "brain facts" or not, it is still fun to
              hear my IT friends get tripped up on the test, yet their spouses or kids
              see it immediately. And whether it is based on LEFT/RIGHT or merely the
              ability for your brain to process the image faster or slower, I find it
              interesting anecdotal evidence.

              Personally, I find that I am more creative when doing mundane things
              (shower, mowing the lawn, etc.). I guess if it is a myth of that being
              dubbed "right-brained"activity ... so be it.

              Could it be that the "right brain/left brain" in popular vernacular is
              possibly just a term that is useful in that it serves as an alias for
              the types of activity than it is for describing the true spatial
              location of the actual activity? In other words, it is a handy "model"
              that may not be precise as parsed, but accurate for the purpose of
              describing the net effect and for /communicating/. It might not be
              accurate if you are a brain scientist defending your PhD dissertation on
              the subject... (Kind of like saying to a layperson that a software
              application is made up of human readable source code, when we all know
              it is much more complex than that. But this too is a handy /illusion/
              that serves a purpose to /communicate/ to those that do not need the
              accuracy.)

              I did find a nice link to support your point:
              http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm

              I also found this coffee bean illusion and others here:
              http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/illusion/illusions.htm

              Thanks for pointing this "controversy" out... The complexities of the
              brain are at once fascinating and humbling. I'm sure in another 20 years
              scientists will posit yet further theories about the brain to refute
              today's.

              jon

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



              Larry Constantine said the following on 5/7/09 7:11 AM:
              > Jon,
              >
              > Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
              > has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
              > give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which doctors?
              > How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
              > anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
              > "right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
              > "right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
              > "left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
              > "Find Waldo" type pastimes.
              >
              > I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
              > pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned in
              > psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
              > much subtler than the simplistic popular models.
              >
              > --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
              > Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
              > University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Adrian Howard
              ... More than a minute, under five. Probably not a fair time coz I knew it would either be an actual image - or a pattern in the beans - so I was looking for
              Message 6 of 16 , May 10, 2009
                On 8 May 2009, at 17:06, Jon Kern wrote:

                > Thanks Larry/(Adrian),
                >
                > You are entitled to your bean raining/usual rants -- as long as you
                > took
                > the test <g>.

                More than a minute, under five. Probably not a fair time coz I knew it
                would either be an actual image - or a pattern in the beans - so I was
                looking for it in a particular way :-)

                [snip]
                > Because, whether it is based on "brain facts" or not, it is still
                > fun to
                > hear my IT friends get tripped up on the test, yet their spouses or
                > kids
                > see it immediately. And whether it is based on LEFT/RIGHT or merely
                > the
                > ability for your brain to process the image faster or slower, I find
                > it
                > interesting anecdotal evidence.
                [snip]

                Also possibly dangerous anecdotal data :-) Maybe it's not a creative
                distinction. Maybe there's no distinction at all (your sample size is
                small). Maybe it's a distinction of folk who were looking for a
                "trick" in the image - rather than a literal picture. Maybe it's the
                environment the question is framed in. Maybe it's rested vs tired
                rather than technical vs creative Maybe...

                The real problem I've found with the left/right thing is that it
                becomes a label. You can't do X coz you're a left brain type. You
                can't do Y coz you're a right brain type. Etc. This is, in my
                experience, a deeply harmful outlook for people. Especially when the
                labels are mythical :-)

                Even if you take the original research by Fink and Marshall at face
                value they were not saying anything about personality types - but
                instead were talking about where different kinds of mental processes
                happened. The idea of left/right brain dominance is just pop-
                psychology - and is about as useful as astrology.

                .... erm... ranting aren't I.... sorry!

                If you want a really dramatic example of how silly the left/right
                brain thing is - have a google around hemispherectomy - scary... but
                fascinating stuff :-)

                Cheers,

                Adrian
              • Jon Kern
                ... becomes a label. That would be a problem, as labels usually are... the original goofy thing i saw on this at least mentioned that you can work to improve
                Message 7 of 16 , May 11, 2009
                  > The real problem I've found with the left/right thing is that it
                  becomes a label.

                  That would be a problem, as labels usually are... the original goofy
                  thing i saw on this at least mentioned that you can work to improve
                  either "side" of the brain... Which I think is a truism.

                  As far as your other "it could be this, it could be that's" -- agreed.
                  Who knows what really goes on in such exercises of the mind.

                  Maybe the "test" should be given in varying order with and without a
                  sudoku puzzle <g>.

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



                  Adrian Howard said the following on 5/10/09 9:22 AM:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On 8 May 2009, at 17:06, Jon Kern wrote:
                  >
                  > > Thanks Larry/(Adrian),
                  > >
                  > > You are entitled to your bean raining/usual rants -- as long as you
                  > > took
                  > > the test <g>.
                  >
                  > More than a minute, under five. Probably not a fair time coz I knew it
                  > would either be an actual image - or a pattern in the beans - so I was
                  > looking for it in a particular way :-)
                  >
                  > [snip]
                  > > Because, whether it is based on "brain facts" or not, it is still
                  > > fun to
                  > > hear my IT friends get tripped up on the test, yet their spouses or
                  > > kids
                  > > see it immediately. And whether it is based on LEFT/RIGHT or merely
                  > > the
                  > > ability for your brain to process the image faster or slower, I find
                  > > it
                  > > interesting anecdotal evidence.
                  > [snip]
                  >
                  > Also possibly dangerous anecdotal data :-) Maybe it's not a creative
                  > distinction. Maybe there's no distinction at all (your sample size is
                  > small). Maybe it's a distinction of folk who were looking for a
                  > "trick" in the image - rather than a literal picture. Maybe it's the
                  > environment the question is framed in. Maybe it's rested vs tired
                  > rather than technical vs creative Maybe...
                  >
                  > The real problem I've found with the left/right thing is that it
                  > becomes a label. You can't do X coz you're a left brain type. You
                  > can't do Y coz you're a right brain type. Etc. This is, in my
                  > experience, a deeply harmful outlook for people. Especially when the
                  > labels are mythical :-)
                  >
                  > Even if you take the original research by Fink and Marshall at face
                  > value they were not saying anything about personality types - but
                  > instead were talking about where different kinds of mental processes
                  > happened. The idea of left/right brain dominance is just pop-
                  > psychology - and is about as useful as astrology.
                  >
                  > .... erm... ranting aren't I.... sorry!
                  >
                  > If you want a really dramatic example of how silly the left/right
                  > brain thing is - have a google around hemispherectomy - scary... but
                  > fascinating stuff :-)
                  >
                  > Cheers,
                  >
                  > Adrian
                  >
                  >
                • Tim Wright
                  Usefully, I ve just finished reading The Human Mind by Robert Winston. I think he puts it quite nicely: While the left and right hemispheres of our brain
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 12, 2009
                    Usefully, I've just finished reading "The Human Mind" by Robert Winston. I think he puts it quite nicely:

                    "While the left and right hemispheres of our brain each have identical structures and in normal circumstances are in constant communication with each other, each half also houses somewhat different functions. Having said that, the two sides of the brain are in constant communication with each other. In most people, the left side tends to do more analytical processing. As well as being the site of language faculties in most people, it is also often responsible for aspects of reason and deduction. The right side, in contrast, tends to be a much more holistic machine.

                    "Much has been written, often without good evidence, about the difference between the function of the right side of the brain and the left side....."

                    Essentially: there are differences between the two sides of the brain. However, in normal circumstances, it doesn't usually matter at all.

                    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).

                    Tim


                    On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Larry Constantine <lconstantine@...> wrote:


                    Jon,

                    Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
                    has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
                    give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which doctors?
                    How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
                    anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
                    "right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
                    "right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
                    "left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
                    "Find Waldo" type pastimes.

                    I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
                    pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned in
                    psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
                    much subtler than the simplistic popular models.

                    --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
                    Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
                    University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal


                  • Marjorie H Pries
                    I think everybody who was interested enough to comment on or keep reading this thread should investigate the book, On Being Certain: Believing you Are Right
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 12, 2009

                      I think everybody who was interested enough to comment on or keep reading this thread should investigate the book, "On Being Certain: Believing you Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert Burton.

                      http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209

                      He presents some very engaging and profound philosophical discussions about selective perception, the known mechanics of  brain function and probable role of evolution that give insights into things like this little game....when you consciously and diligently look for the man, you don't see him, but when you turn that processing off and let what some people refer to as intuition take over, he pops right out at you.



                      Marjorie H. Pries
                      Lead Consultant / Utility Infielder

                      ThoughtWorks, Inc.
                      http://www.thoughtworks.com

                      "Don't believe everything you think."
                          --seen on a bumpersticker



                      Tim Wright <sambo.shacklock@...>
                      Sent by: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com

                      05/12/2009 03:00 PM

                      Please respond to
                      agile-usability@yahoogroups.com

                      To
                      agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
                      cc
                      Subject
                      Re: [agile-usability] Is your right brain active?









                      Usefully, I've just finished reading "The Human Mind" by Robert Winston. I think he puts it quite nicely:

                      "While the left and right hemispheres of our brain each have identical structures and in normal circumstances are in constant communication with each other, each half also houses somewhat different functions. Having said that, the two sides of the brain are in constant communication with each other. In most people, the left side tends to do more analytical processing. As well as being the site of language faculties in most people, it is also often responsible for aspects of reason and deduction. The right side, in contrast, tends to be a much more holistic machine.

                      "Much has been written, often without good evidence, about the difference between the function of the right side of the brain and the left side....."

                      Essentially: there are differences between the two sides of the brain. However, in normal circumstances, it doesn't usually matter at all.

                      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).

                      Tim


                      On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Larry Constantine <lconstantine@...> wrote:

                      Jon,

                      Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
                      has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
                      give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which doctors?
                      How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
                      anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
                      "right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
                      "right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
                      "left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
                      "Find Waldo" type pastimes.

                      I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
                      pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned in
                      psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
                      much subtler than the simplistic popular models.

                      --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
                      Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
                      University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal



                    • Ron Jeffries
                      Hello, Marjorie. On Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 7:40:09 AM, you ... Thanks for this link. Ordered for my Kindle. Looks fascinating! Ron Jeffries
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 12, 2009
                        Hello, Marjorie. On Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 7:40:09 AM, you
                        wrote:

                        > I think everybody who was interested enough to comment on or keep reading
                        > this thread should investigate the book, "On Being Certain: Believing you
                        > Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert Burton.

                        > http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209

                        > He presents some very engaging and profound philosophical discussions
                        > about selective perception, the known mechanics of brain function and
                        > probable role of evolution that give insights into things like this little
                        > game....when you consciously and diligently look for the man, you don't
                        > see him, but when you turn that processing off and let what some people
                        > refer to as intuition take over, he pops right out at you.

                        Thanks for this link. Ordered for my Kindle. Looks fascinating!

                        Ron Jeffries
                        www.XProgramming.com
                        www.xprogramming.com/blog
                        Speak the affirmative; emphasize your choice
                        by utterly ignoring all that you reject. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
                      • Larry Constantine
                        ... 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
                        Message 11 of 16 , May 13, 2009

                          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

                           

                        • Ron Jeffries
                          Hello, Larry. On Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 7:19:03 AM, you ... It s interesting, though, how much MB /does/ manage to say about people s preferencee. Ron
                          Message 12 of 16 , May 13, 2009
                            Hello, Larry. On Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 7:19:03 AM, you
                            wrote:

                            > 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.

                            It's interesting, though, how much MB /does/ manage to say about
                            people's preferencee.

                            Ron Jeffries
                            www.XProgramming.com
                            www.xprogramming.com/blog
                            The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. -- Geoffrey Chaucer
                          • Ron Jeffries
                            Hello, Larry. On Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 10:24:03 AM, you ... I m not sure what objective validity would be. Not sure there is one. However, I have seen
                            Message 13 of 16 , May 13, 2009
                              Hello, Larry. On Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 10:24:03 AM, you
                              wrote:

                              > It SEEMS to manage to say-meaning, people tend to feel/think it describes
                              > them and others. It's the apparent attribution phenomenon. Research shows
                              > that even completely phony tests with randomly assigned descriptions are
                              > seen as subjectively valid. Unfortunately, the real objective validity of MB
                              > is just not there.

                              I'm not sure what "objective validity" would be. Not sure there is
                              one. However, I have seen people well versed in M-B perform
                              substantially better than chance at tasks like separating the NTs
                              from the NFs. I think it is pretty obvious, observing me, that I'll
                              score T and not F, for example.

                              I can imagine that people would "see" whatever in a person with a
                              randomly assigned description. But are you suggesting that for
                              people who have actually answered the questions to the best of their
                              ability, that their real life responses are essentially random with
                              respect to their description? I'd have guessed otherwise.

                              Ron Jeffries
                              www.XProgramming.com
                              www.xprogramming.com/blog
                              The greatest mistake we make is living in constant fear that we will make one.
                              -- John Maxwell
                            • Larry Constantine
                              ... people s preferencee.
                              Message 14 of 16 , May 13, 2009

                                Ron said:

                                 

                                > It's interesting, though, how much MB /does/ manage to say about
                                people's preferencee.<

                                It SEEMS to manage to say—meaning,  people tend to feel/think it describes them and others. It’s the apparent attribution phenomenon. Research shows that even completely phony tests with randomly assigned descriptions are seen as subjectively valid. Unfortunately, the real objective validity of MB is just not there.

                                 

                                Sorry, more rain in the forecast. :-)

                                 

                                --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow

                                 

                              • Jon Kern
                                Interesting Larry... I have been subjected to numerous of these... MB (ENTP) MB-offshoot that I took with a therapist friend KT and a few others... Oft-times,
                                Message 15 of 16 , May 14, 2009
                                  Interesting Larry...

                                  I have been subjected to numerous of these...
                                  MB (ENTP)
                                  MB-offshoot that I took with a therapist friend
                                  KT
                                  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?"

                                  jon
                                  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
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Tim Wright
                                  Alternatively, MB only measures 4 aspects of personality - and there are lots of others (boiling humans sown to four opposing poles does seem strange). From a
                                  Message 16 of 16 , May 15, 2009
                                    Alternatively, MB only measures 4 aspects of personality - and there are lots of others (boiling humans sown to four opposing poles does seem strange).

                                    From a research perspective (I used to work for a psychometrics firm that has been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology), one of the key problems with MB is that it is a forced-choice type result - people have to choose between two results (E or I, etc). There are several problems with this:

                                    1. people might prefer something else
                                    2. it measures preference rather than strength

                                    Despite this, I had the understanding that MB was based on decent (well, decent in those decades ago) research. Larry - do you have references about the problems with it?

                                    This is also far off topic for this group - who wants to take the discussion off-line? Flick me an email and we can continue (I find personality and behavioral testing fascinating!)

                                    Tim

                                    On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Jon Kern <jonkern@...> wrote:
                                    Interesting Larry...

                                    I have been subjected to numerous of these...
                                    MB (ENTP)
                                    MB-offshoot that I took with a therapist friend
                                    KT
                                    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?"
                                    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
                                    >
                                    >


                                    ------------------------------------

                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/

                                    <*> Your email settings:
                                       Individual Email | Traditional

                                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                                       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/join
                                       (Yahoo! ID required)

                                    <*> To change settings via email:
                                       mailto:agile-usability-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                       mailto:agile-usability-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                       agile-usability-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                       http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.