Meyers-Briggs
So, as I've been going through my job change i was talking with someone whom i respect who reccommended taking the myers-briggs. He knew a bit about me and figured that i wouldn't like being classified and he was right. Still, at that time (a few weeks ago, before I had a job, and was hence nervous, and hence perhaps a bit more suseptible, a bit more wanting of reassurance (of what, more later)) I thought about taking it, and had I been figured out how to do it online might have. But I couldn't and so it sort of faded out of my consciousness.
Then, yesterday, another friend I respect listed on facebook that they were working with myers-briggs, and I know that they have done so many times before and love the results they get from it (not love the group they are in, but love the help knowing the relationality of themselves to others).
As I was taking my walk today it occurred to me (and this is the deep thought I've been working towards all this time) that myers-briggs is much like the kind of question we (everyone, right?) encounter continually on facebook: Which character on M*A*S*H* are you? etc. etc. I would posit the way in which meyers-briggs brackets personality types is the same way it brackets a world (or set). I.e., basically as limitted.
So, you pre-limit the world and then this test makes sense. As long as everyone has to be someone from M*A*S*H*, then everyone will be someone from M*A*S*H*. Even MB purist allow for change over time. You can have been a Klinger in your youth but a Burns in your adulthood (tho I have to admit exploring thisas even making sense might be confusing), but you can't be someone walking off Mork and Mindy into this thing. There will always be someone from Mork and Mindy walking into this thing in my opinion. The list of personalities even if you do want to use one (and they do have a funcionality you can argue for (argument?)) is historical and changing I would think, there being an unknown future and all.
But this kind of fitting yourself into a world is obviously popular, and probably makes sense that it's more necessary as we expand into new territories or whatever you call cyberspace. In fact, if nothing else it's staking out that territory. I guess the reason I've been reluctant is just that, I'm not that interested in staking territory MB has to offer, now on the other hand, I'm totally Hawkeye.
Then, yesterday, another friend I respect listed on facebook that they were working with myers-briggs, and I know that they have done so many times before and love the results they get from it (not love the group they are in, but love the help knowing the relationality of themselves to others).
As I was taking my walk today it occurred to me (and this is the deep thought I've been working towards all this time) that myers-briggs is much like the kind of question we (everyone, right?) encounter continually on facebook: Which character on M*A*S*H* are you? etc. etc. I would posit the way in which meyers-briggs brackets personality types is the same way it brackets a world (or set). I.e., basically as limitted.
So, you pre-limit the world and then this test makes sense. As long as everyone has to be someone from M*A*S*H*, then everyone will be someone from M*A*S*H*. Even MB purist allow for change over time. You can have been a Klinger in your youth but a Burns in your adulthood (tho I have to admit exploring thisas even making sense might be confusing), but you can't be someone walking off Mork and Mindy into this thing. There will always be someone from Mork and Mindy walking into this thing in my opinion. The list of personalities even if you do want to use one (and they do have a funcionality you can argue for (argument?)) is historical and changing I would think, there being an unknown future and all.
But this kind of fitting yourself into a world is obviously popular, and probably makes sense that it's more necessary as we expand into new territories or whatever you call cyberspace. In fact, if nothing else it's staking out that territory. I guess the reason I've been reluctant is just that, I'm not that interested in staking territory MB has to offer, now on the other hand, I'm totally Hawkeye.
posted by Josh May at 3:20 PM
1 Comments:
As I was driving home I realized that me just saying I am Hawkeye is totally different from the computer saying it (besides the fact that M*A*S*H* has a little more of a hierarchy than the BM). It's a power move of one sort to name yourself, and another to say a god (Science, Computer) named you. Personally trying not to judge either, it's all about functionality.
Post a Comment
<< Home