I happen to be a believer in these kinds of tests- to a limited degree.
I was on staff at a wilderness camp years ago and our small staff of 13
went through a test (can't remember the name of the test, but it
categorized by the letters D, I, S, and C). In the end, we got to know
the other staff members much better and had a deeper understanding of
ourselves. I really helped us relate to each other and showed us how to
relate to certain people.

But

They can obviously be taken too far. We have a friend who has the
Meyers-Briggs classifications down cold, to the point that she can
pigeonhole a new person within a few minutes. It's uncanny, but can
result in some reductionist thinking. ("Oh, this person is an INTJ, I
need to treat him this way, or I shouldn't say such-and-such"). The
initials are a starting point, not a destination.

Jason


On Sep 15, 2004, at 9:10 AM, barry brake wrote:

>
> <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/09/12/
> against_types?mode=PF>
>
> i'd be interested in your responses to the above -- an article that
> talks about critics of testing, from rorshach to myers-briggs. in
> particular, rich, you've mentioned that the mmpi, uncannily, works;
> and i myself have taken a pop version of the myers-briggs, and found
> the resulting paragraph to be an unnervingly accurate description of
> me! just anecdotal evidence to be sure, but perhaps more valuable than
> a fortune cookie!
>
> --
>
> barry
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>