Dear Bill
Actually I do know of the Meyers Briggs profiler and have used it many
many times, in my opinion it is a very low level profiler, not at all
accurate and if Jung knew that it was based on his work he would be
turning in his grave, because it has very little to do with the type for
work he was doing. I think the correlations of this profiler is about 20%
actaully. But I would need to check that up. But most of these profilers
are not more than 20 or 30%. Pretty poor really. If you read the
introductions of these profilers on the research they have done you might
get a shock, for your own interest you might want to do that.
We should stick to the subject of profilers and systems approach. Let me
share what it means by systems approach. There is a cybernetic loop
between the nervous system (brain) and our responses (actions) or
behaviours. Connected by the so-called feedback loop, see Peter Senge,
Ashby, Von Foerster, Ackoff etc etc . So a profiler must be able to take
into account the internal representations, the responses and the feedback
loop. If it does not do this it is not a systems approach. From my
knowledge and correct me if I am wrong the Meyers Briggs is very far from
this. In fact there is not one profiler that I have seen that can do this.
First of all mainly because one has to freeze time and its human value
components, secondly take into account the field theories on continuum.
Now, no profiler can do this mainly because they are mixed models meaning
they cannot differentiate between motivation, responses and internal
representations and the time component. So what has happened is that
someone just sucks out of their thumb what they think personality
characteristics are. This profiler plus all the others I have seen could
be not further from a systems approach. On the comment of 3 million people
can't be wrong, believe me it is very easy to dupe people who have no
knowledge on this subject. Everybody has an opinion on the human condition
and it is formed by generalization, distortion and deletion, see Noam
Chomsky's 1957 Doctoral on Transformational Grammar.
I can get anyone to do things by using certain words, sometimes we are just
like robots. So the fact that 3 million people believe it has no bearing on
the actuality of it being accurate assessment or not.
Kindest
Gavin
Billhendry@aol.com wrote:
> The profile I speak of is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Your assertion
> that anything lower than 90% means the test is not accurate seems quite a
> stretch for me. I'd be happy that many things, including my own
> perception, be accurate only 50% of the time! ...
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>