One problem with psychology -- rather with the popular use of psychology -- is that everbody believes themselves to be a lay psychologist; the same doesn't hold true for medicine, for example, or biology.
A related problem is the way technical terms become appropriated by society, their meanings becoming distorted even while people believe the distorted meanings to refer to the same original terms. 'Relativity' is one such term from physics that has become a part of everyday speech but the common connotation is quite removed from its technical definition. I'm referring here to the terms 'extraversion' (rather than 'extroversion') and 'intraversion'. These terms are commonly taken to mean -- the backslapping sociable behavior is extraversion, while sitting alone in a corner reading a book is introversion. Not at all. A Extravert TRAIT as understood by people in business) is understood to mean that the individual draws energy through relatively intense interaction with people. An Intravert TRAIT would mean that the concerned individual feels drained by interacting with people. The terms don't mean that a Intravert avoids people or that an Extravert is relentlessly garrulous. One realizes that there are a variety of activities one is required to engage in in order to live a productive life, but there are some activities one prefers and thoroughly over others. OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. Personality tests should not be administered to children who are still developing their personalities and may not show stable results for those under 25. But for older persons, the results tend to become increasingly reliable --- provided one is not gaming the instrument [which will happen if it is seen as something to 'score' in]. Being 'animated' does not -- by itself -- an EXTRAVERT make. An intraverted person can become very animated about an issue that she is very passionate about. Being intraverted and passionate are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the halls of academe are filled with intraverted persons who aren't necessarily dull and boring in class. Giving lectures doesn't demand 'extraversion'. Doing presentations in the manner of Tom Peters and Steve Ballmer does demand 'extraversion'. Likewise, being not very communicative at a cocktail party does not imply that one is an 'intravert'. Perhaps the context doesn't excite you very much. It is possible that you are really an 'intravert'. Judge your 'intraversion' and 'extraversion' from how you feel about interacting in small or large groups intensely with others, not necessarily on matters that are your primary interest (such as IxD, for instance). As for me, I enjoy solitude as much as the next person and many of my deepest insights come from going out for a walk alone. But I can (and do) pick up conversations with anybody, anywhere, without signficant effort. And such interactions leave me energized rather than drained. [Now, there are people and situations that drain me, but those are exceptions.] I conclude, therefore, that I am an Extravert. And that is exactly what the instrument tells me. I do my taxes, and run through the numbers with a fine toothcomb. Heck, I have qualifications in engineering, business, and information technology. And I can do detailed, structured, technical stuff when required. But I absolutely enjoy fuzzy, ambiguous, uncertain situations and tasks. I must emphasize that the evaluation is to be done by oneself. One may use the observations of others as additional data points to either reinforce or refute one's position. And by aggregating a lot of such anecdotal data, one can get close to the 'truth', whatever that might be. There is another issue relating to the 'attribution error' point that you make. Some individuals -- and personality styles -- tend to be better at accurately understanding themselves than others. Howard Gardner calls this 'intrapersonal intelligence.' Both Gardner and the MBTI have been trashed by 'fine scholars everywhere' as well as sneering skeptics. Nevertheless, a lot of very intelligent and reasonable people (and not just those that read the National Inquirer, Readers Digest and People) find a lot of face validity in both Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences and the MBTI (and other personality tests). Always keep in mind George Box's dictum: All models are wrong. Some are useful. And Richard Hamming's advice: The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers. Insight is what we're looking for. Personality style instruments are not accurate, but accuracy is not their purpose, but insight. And a model. And who doesn't use models. -- murli nagasundaram, ph.d. | www.murli.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +91 99 02 69 69 20 ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
