personality profiles

haha Char I just went over to your blog, randomly clicked on the personality type screen-cap, and went and did the MBTI test. So I found out I'm introverted, intuitive, thinking and judging (INTJ). I think I've done personality tests often enough (rather I've been forced to - RI, RJ, Civil Service College...) and that's the result I usually get.

It amuses me that I (allegedly) have the same personality type as Hannibal Barca, C. S. Lewis, Isaac Newton, and - get this - Gandalf. And also that anyone could, purely on the basis of a 76-point questionaire, claim to be able to tell me about me, when I've spent the last 19 years grappling with the same issue. (Not all the time, granted; I'm not an egomaniac.)

At the same time, though, it's striking how uncannily accurate the descriptors seem. For instance,

(from an INTJ profile I found)

Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.

This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation... Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense.

Hell, yes! That's me all right... although I suspect this is something similar to how uncannily accurate horoscopes seem at first sight. (cf the Forer Effect: skepdic and wikipedia)

-----

And yes, another thing... I find it disturbing that these personality tests are used and trusted to the extent that they are. I'm sure the (similar) 16PF evaluation is a pretty big part of PSC's selection criteria... and that the army does a similar evaluation in the computer test thingy that everyone does after the medical screening.

I guess my main peeve is that the uncritical acceptance of these test results, and their use to filter out potential candidates for corporate - or worse, civil service - jobs, results in an accumulation of similar personalities in positions of responsibility, and also increases the potential for groupthink.

I mean, assuming those tests are accurate, and certain personality types are favoured over others for certain types of jobs (particularly leadership), isn't it at least likely that similar people think in similar ways, aim for similar goals, that sort of thing? And then where'd diversity - from which springs richness of ideas and intellectual competition - come from? True they might use similar methods (as in patterns of thought) but arrive at different ends; but can that be guaranteed?

Well I'm sure it's not the only criteria for selection - especially in the PSC - but considering also that the more criteria you impose the less variance you're going to get (I'm sure there's a theorem somewhere in statistics that states that, but I'm way too lazy to puzzle out the actual maths!), I'm afraid it's quite possible that the more rigorous, objective and "scientific" an interview process is, the more it'll work against the organisation.

Ideas, anyone? Do I have a case or a bag of hot air?