Over on Living Brands, Jon Howard points us to a fantastic site called Personal DNA which is a new kind of personality test that feels much more 'real' (both in input and output) than the generic Myers-Briggs methodology.
Having completed it, I am apparently a benevolent experiencer - here's the color map that was produced, unique to me. If you roll over each color it reveals its meaning:
I guess it's this degree of personalization that makes this feel much more believable and useful than the more pigeon hole Myers-Briggs methodology. It's also worth completing a test to see how they make an online survey involving.
The test is also fun to complete, with original ways of answering the questions (filling in buckets etc.).
(Did this a while back, and discovered I was an "attentive creator", for what it is worth!)
Posted by: Dino | May 15, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Thanks for the trackback.
A bit of a boring methodological point (and long, I now realise!!)but, user friendly as the questionnaire is, I wonder how much noise the sliding scales introduce: there is a sense of unlimited choice...sometimes in multiple dimensions.
I have completed many different Myers Briggs-related tests over the years, and always come out as an INFJ, with similar splits between the different poles. I've taken this test twice (yes I'm that sad) and been different both times: a Considerate Inventor and a Respectful Experiencer (although Considerate and Respectful are probably not that different, and inventing/experiencing aren't bad qualities for a planner). On 5 of the measures my scores varied by between 10 & 20 (out of 100), and one, Empathy, by nearly 50 (go figure).
Anyway, got me thinking about online questionnaires: they are becoming more intuitive, visual and fluid in design, which we all say is a good thing. But does this just create a whole load of new issues?
The more didactic 'yes/no' style may force you into a 'best fit' box. But even though not 100% accurate (assuming that's possible / important), one person's answers are probably less likely to fluctuate if faced with black and white options. The new graphical interfaces are arguably more qualitative in nature: that 'looks' or 'feels' right. Which is good, as it probably better reflects the messiness of reality. But if there is loads of noise built in, you may as well read tea leaves if you're wanting something 'objective' and 'true' (if research can ever be that!). Anyway, does nothing to reassure me about the validity of attitudinally-focused quant research.
Another thought that struck me (to be frivolous for a mo), was also whether there is a planning personality (I’m sure there is). Looking at our colour boxes, there are some obvious differences (attention to style! I haven’t got much). But also some interesting similarities: low authoritarianism, low confidence, average to low extrovertism. Ahhh, the planning disease. Although without it we may have ended up in account management, so we should be thankful for small mercies!!
Posted by: jonhoward | May 16, 2006 at 04:10 AM
Jon
Fair point about the methodology. One thing your post makes me thinks of is it fair to pigeonhole someone as one of 16 types? Do our personalities change depensing on context - time of day, circumstances, etc. I'm sure some core things remain the same but maybe we do change at the edges. But I share your point about the methodology and attitudinal quant. Always reminds me of the old maxim I was taught when a youngster in the planning world - qual is to understand why, quant how many. So maybe force fit is better as long as we are forcing people in to the right boxes and give them the chance to opt out.
Posted by: Gareth | May 16, 2006 at 02:40 PM
Have the same debates with my wife - she loathes the whole idea of personality testing.
I agree that we change based on context - send me on a course or an awayday and I turn, Mr Hyde-like, into this domineering, mouthy slave driver.
And as you grow and mature, things do change - you mellow in certain areas; overcome hang ups in other.
But I do think the core basic building blocks of any one individual's psyche are probably pretty consistent.
So I think forcing people to say what they are like 'most of the time', with binary yes/no choices, is possibly better than offering the freedom to magnify that bit of your personality that you really like which only emerges once in a blue moon. Or the idealised you that isn't even really there at all.
Opt outs? Definately. Always seen that as the way to people to vote in elections as well (he says with a massive tangential swerve): I exercise my democratic right to choose no one!
Posted by: jonhoward | May 17, 2006 at 03:18 AM