Psychological voodoo

[tahnan]

Normally I'm extremely dubious of any psychological testing that can somehow figure out your personality, including that Myers-Briggs nonsense. I figure it's a lot like a horoscope: say something vague enough, and yeah, it'll apply.

Nevertheless, I took the Color Quiz, because, enh, why not, what else am I doing right now? (A lot. Don't ask.) And it probably is just astrological, but I'm still a little...unnerved, perhaps:

Your Actual Problem
Intensely critical of the existing conditions which he feels are disorganized or insufficiently clear-cut. Is therefore seeking some solution which will clarify the situation and introduce a more acceptable degree of order and method.

I'm not quoting the rest of it. Too unnerving. Suffice to say that I'm still the Knight of Swords.

Comments

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Mine was weirdly accurate, too. Buh.

[marith.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, it's still bunk. The first sentence of my result was something like "You do things in an orderly, methodical and organized fashion."

They'd have been more accurate with numerology. :)

[cnoocy]

You might find this explanation interesting. I happened not to like the shade of green they use, which probably skewed my results.

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

You can find another explanation here. Mine was an eerily accurate assessment of my current situation. OTOH, saxikath's and tahnan's and colorwheel and elaintyger's are also eerily accurate assessment's of my current situation.

I had originally typoed "errily accurate" which may be a more appropriate term.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

The Barnum Effect was more or less exactly what I had in mind when I compared it to astrology, though I didn't know it by that name. Maybe I should try again, clicking on colors at random, to see what happens.

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

I didn't like any of the shades they used. :)

[colorwheel.livejournal.com]

"Agitation, unpredictability, and irritation accompanying depleted vitality and intolerance of further demands have all placed her in a position in which she feels menaced by her circumstances. Feeling powerless to remedy this by any action of her own, she is desperately hoping that some solution will provide a way of escape."

i'll be over here in bed if anyone needs me.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Sigh. All of my colored thoughts are with you. Even the colorless green ones.

[saxikath]

Wishes to be independent, unhampered, and free from any limitation or restriction, other than those which she imposes of herself or by her own choice and decision. Willing to participate and to allow herself to become involved, but tries to fend off conflict and disturbance in order to reduce tension.

Does not wish to be involved in differences of opinion, contention or argument, preferring to be left in peace.

Um. Yeah, that's about right.

[siderea]

Normally I'm extremely dubious of any psychological testing that can somehow figure out your personality,

Why? Do you think personality is a phenomenon outside natural law?

including that Myers-Briggs nonsense. I figure it's a lot like a horoscope: say something vague enough, and yeah, it'll apply.

If you present someone with a Myers-Briggs profile (description) which is not theirs, they will generally say so. (Actually, what they'll say is, "Well, I guess.... I suppose I could see how that might be true...." and they get the classic "human trying to be agreeable" look.) Even if it's presented to them as theirs after they take the indicator (test).

I know this because I've done it. :}

MB is not voodoo. It's a questionaire which asks people their preferences in a category scheme with which most people are unfamiliar with upon first meeting the indicator. Because that scheme of categorizing traits, actions and behaviors is unfamiliar, it unearths patterns which the test taker never noticed. That's what makes it "eerie". Like most eerie things, from microscopic critters in our drinking water to the sounds of strange insects, it simply exposes people to the unknown lurking the the familiar -- in this case patterns of action/taste they have over the course of their life. It's actually pretty mundane.

It makes a very entertaining parlor game, but the actual psychometric test (and more importantly, the theory and study underlying it) should not be mistaken for a parlor game. There are many fine criticisms of both the Indicator and the personality theory(ies) underlying the instrument, but neither the Barnum effect nor that personality is beyond the incursions of science are among them.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

So, nu, I shouldn't have included Myers-Briggs with horoscopes, though I happen to have a certain distaste for both.

It's true that MB is more scientifically based than, say, a horoscope. I dislike most personality indicators, especially MB, not because I think that "personality is a phenomenon outside natural law", but because I think it is not so easily categorized. Ask my friends whether I'm an introvert or extrovert; ask people I don't know at a party. The former will probably tell you I'm loud, outgoing, need to be the center of attention; the latter will probably tell you they don't even remember seeing me there. So where does it get you?

For instance, I recall one of the "which would you prefer" questions on the Myers-Briggs (I think it was on that, anyway) being "large circle of casual acquaintances vs. small circle of close friends", and I thought, "Well...both?"

It's an entirely different reason that I'm skeptical of horoscopes. I think a person's personality affects how he behaves, whereas I don't think a person's birthdate and the location of some planets affects it. The Color Quiz...well, of course, there's the parlor-game aspect of it, and I think my skepticism of online versions of psychological testing is more justified. But it does feel somewhere between MB and horoscopes: I can at least understad where the results of Myers-Briggs come from, whereas this looks a lot more like handwaving, "woooOOoooOoooo" kind of results, if that makes sense.

Cnoocy's link above, explaining how the test works...well, it contains things like "Blue (1) - Represents 'Depth of Feeling'" and so forth, which really do make the colors look like tarot suits. I just don't feel convinced that reading "he's passive and sensitive" into "he likes blue" is strongly grounded in psychological principles. (Of course, I'm not a psychologist.) Especially when one considers that, on the online version, the colors are some pretty particular shades--I don't like the shade of green they used, particularly, but I do like grass green a fair amount. Similarly their tannish-brown, as opposed to, say, a brown closer to the brown of my alma mater. (Which is Brown. The shade of brown used there for banners, graduate robes, etc. etc., is much more chocolatey; perhaps because of that, or perhaps because I went there, I find it much more comforting than the tan the website uses.)

Moreover, the directions say, "Pick the color that makes you feel the best"; the description of the test on the page Cnoocy linked to has "Decide which of the eight colors you like best". Well, I happen to really like blue, but I also happened to find some of the other colors, I don't know, more comforting? whatever it was. (Indeed, look at my icon: blue shirt, blue background. Also: blue color scheme in my LJ. And in Windows, actually, though you can't see it from where you are. Nevertheless, look at the result I got above--all about tension, need to control, need to bring order--and compare it to what "blue" means on this test--"passive", "tranquility", "contentment". So, again: nu?)

So I hope that clears it up. I think horoscopes are bunk, highly susceptible to the Barnum Effect. I think Myers-Briggs isn't as glorious as pop-psych makes it out to be (I had a teacher in high school who actually suggested we take a MB test as if we were Hamlet, to see what we could learn about his character...), but because I think personality is quite complex. I think the Color Quiz is somewhere between the two, and that online versions of any of these things fall closer to astrology than when they're administered and evaluated by professionals.

[siderea]

I dislike most personality indicators, especially MB, not because I think that "personality is a phenomenon outside natural law", but because I think it is not so easily categorized.

Hah. And those statements are significantly different how?

Sure it is. :} First of all, there are no limits on the ability categorizing things; the question is what categories are useful, and for what, and then how easily they those things' categorizations according to that scheme may be determined.

So we wind up with things like the Big Five, which I think speedily turns up pretty useless info, and the MBTI which speedily turns up more useful info.

Personally, I'm holding out for a blood test. :)

Ask my friends whether I'm an introvert or extrovert; ask people I don't know at a party. The former will probably tell you I'm loud, outgoing, need to be the center of attention; the latter will probably tell you they don't even remember seeing me there. So where does it get you?

Someplace very different than the MBTI does. After all, the one thing the MBTI is unambiguously and completely uninterested in is how anyone other than you sees you. It's a measure of self conception, after all.

For instance, I recall one of the "which would you prefer" questions on the Myers-Briggs (I think it was on that, anyway) being "large circle of casual acquaintances vs. small circle of close friends", and I thought, "Well...both?"

Nu? It's a data point derived from a forced choice. The questions are supposed to be irritatingly difficult forced choices. It wouldn't be a very interesting indicator otherwise, now would it?

The Color Quiz...well, of course, there's the parlor-game aspect of it, and I think my skepticism of online versions of psychological testing is more justified.

Oh, I totally agree with your skepticism of the Color Quiz. FYI, my results on the Color Quiz were about 50% badly wrong.

See, one of the consequences of studying Type (which is what MB insiders and Jungians call it) in depth, is that it's an antidote, at least partly, against the Barnum effect.

The Barnum effect is based on presenting attributes to the reader and saying "You have this attribute, right?" Type theory is based on the presumption that all people have some degree of all attributes it is concerned with; it's interested in their comparative preferences. Hence all those irritatingly forced choices. So Type presents the reader with statements like, "You're more X than Y." Such statements are more casually falsifiable if they're value neutral ("No, actually, I don't prefer schedules to spontaneity"). Once one has learned about these opposing pairs -- some of which are not so obvious -- when one reads a standard horoscope, one can't help but seeing each of the proposed statements through those dichotomies. Statements like "You are a caring and sensitive person" provoke a response, say, of "When more than half of all people scored higher than me on the F axis, it's probably safe to say that my level of caring and sensitivity is not remarkable enough to characterize me!"