Replying to LO24565 --
Why don't you have a look at my site at
I tackle this issue of this very thing in terms of a simple framework
which is useful, maybe next year it will not be-who knows.
> Replying to LO22598 --
> I've been reading last year's thread on this topic, and found myself
> getting quite curious about the subject of personality (or thinking)
> classification instruments such as the MBTI, Kiersey, etc. I was glad to
> see the recurring point made that these instruments are most validly
> applied by an individual to aid his/her own personal mastery, rather than
> as a way to judge others.
> Even in self-applying such an instrument, there is some danger of having
> the result color one's thinking, as in the old saying "to a man with only
> a hammer, everything looks like a nail". This has led me to speculate
> that one should apply at least two of these instruments, to get a more
> balanced picture and avoid falling into the trap of confusing the map with
> the territory, as the General Semantics folks put it.
If you have read some of my other threads you will see that I am a
semantics convert-really look at my model, it shows human problem solving
methodologies, human problem solving capabilities, human processes and
problems, human mental-emotional tensions ( problems). I call this the
Problematic Paradigm Grid.
The instruments I have designed to assess are never static always changing
and not valid. They are useful now and in ten years time will probably
have no use. This is just one map the shows a very small part of the
territory. There are more things between heaven and earth than we can
I use three different profiles to create picture, internal values/motives,
goal directed behaviour, and capability in terms of cognition. There are
still things that can't be measured like, level of attachment to object,
level of responsibility. These profiles also only look at things from the
work point of view that is in terms of a work role. We have many roles I
have calculated there are more than 100 000 million million combinations
of a these profiles so what I am saying is that each person is unique,
> In turn, this has led me to ask: is there someone in this group with
> enough knowledge about several of the instruments to suggest how they
> might be related to each other, so as to find a good set to be applied
> simultaneously (or to find the right one(s) to be applied in a given
This is a long arduous task, most profilers from the USA are of the (4
boxes) box type, mix up behaviour, motivation and capability. They are so
called mixed models, MBTI, CPI, DISC, etc. there is also the 16PF which
has sixteen personality factors.
>From the UK OPQ Saville & Holdsworth is the most popular. There are
literally tons of these things around not one can claim any sort of
systems approach. If you look at my PPG above a 5 year look out nothing
exists even in the field of CAS, Cybernetics etc. So no one can yet claim
to have the right pofile.
People also get attached to profiles because it seems to make sense. Even
when there is plenty of evidence to show the thing is useless.
On the issue of validity there are plenty of profiles that are so-called
valid but totally useless in providing the appropraite profile and answers
for management -so on this point I am not even going to go there.
Gavin Ritz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.