Discussion
Topics Last Day Last Week
Tree View
Documentation
Getting Started
FAQ
Formatting
Troubleshooting
Program Credits
Utilities
New Messages
Keyword Search
Contact
User Profile
Administration
intro.psych (Psyco 105) Discussion: Group 3 Discussion Group: Personality: Sites to Visit: Kiersey Temperament Sorter
By Patricia on Wednesday, October 14, 1998 - 03:14 pm:
The Kiersey Temperament Sorter is a personality inventory which assesses "type". Is this a clinically based, a lab-based, or a psychometrically based measure (see page 565 of Gray)? What are the major differences among the three? If your scores counted for something that was important to you, how would you like to be
The Kiersey Temperament Sorter is a psychometrically based measure. In other words, it uses a questionnaire to compile results. This is in contrast to a lab-based approach that use experiments to examine personality differences, or a clinical method that uses client data gathered by psychotherapists.
I found this questionnaire sort of tedious. The questions were so vague that you could put yourself in two situations and then either answer could be true. I know that it is just a (I can't think of the right word right now)wide spread calculation, I would compare it to a quiz you take in Cosmo or something. Therefore I agree with Jene that I would rather be diagnosed clinically.
I didn't like this questionnaire that much either. I don't think it is very valid. This definately seems, like Mollyc said, like the sort of "test" you'd take in a magazine. I don't like the generalizability of it. I don't think you can group people into such strict categories as this does. I think that personality is a lot more than just the few dimensions they try to describe it in.
This website tests the trait theory of personality using psychometric testing. We have already mentioned some of the disadvantages of this method (Validity and oversimplifications). When someone asks me how I would like to be tested for my personality I have a hard time answering. I think that personality is a very hard thing to figure out. The problems with the psychodynamic approach was already discussed by Jene. The main problems with the social cognitive approach is that the theories aren't really defining the entire person, and the underemphasis on drives and emotions. These are the problems that the book describes with these three problems. One of my major problems with these three approaches is that the book describes them as mutually exclusive (or it seems like it). I think that personality is not determined by one of these but a combination of the three plus perhaps more.
I only have a question to ask right now, I'm wondering what this kind of research is used for? . I'll be on again tomorrow morning.
To answer Molly's question, I will respond with a personal experience. When I was 21, I dated a guy who was just dying for me to take a personality test-one all his friends had taken. His reasoning was that he wanted to know how to interact with me better-like he could with his friends who had taken the test. Somehow, he thought that me doing the test would allow him to understand the real me. Well, I refused to take the test because I didn't want to be pigeon-holed into a specific personality type and I wanted to be interacted with naturally. So to answer the question, "What is this research used for?," I think one of its uses is to take the complex concept of personality and break it down into manageable, easily understandable, predictable units-which may not be such a good thing-or even possible. Did I answer the question, because I'm not sure I did...
Jene that is an excellent repsoponse , it makes a lot of sense. But i am surprised that a person would want to make a personality simpler, what if the part they chose was incompatible. I'm glad you chose not to take the test.
Group Three Summary
You made a number of good points in your discussion, particularly, oversimplification and the absence of addressing emotions and drives. The point about the text being contradictory is interesting. When I thought this through I came to the conclusion that self-monitoring occurs within a constrained range of behaviours, the range set somewhat by enduring approaches to the world, that is, personality. So I thought that self-monitoring and personality stability were not necessarily mutually exclusive. The point was very thought-provoking though. Good job.
tested? What are the benefits and limitations of the method of measurement you would choose?
Go There
Back to Personality Sites to Visit
By Jene on Sunday, November 1, 1998 - 11:50 am:
If my scores counted for something that was important to me, I would like to be tested in a clinically based way. I favour this method because it is very personal. In my opinion, the nuances of the individual are examined in a holistic way in a clinical setting. The drawbacks arise from the interpretation of the information collected-it would be very subjective. There would also be the problem of what people chose to share in a clinical setting-this would affect the data to be examined. You would also have to ensure that a broad cross-section of people in a clinical setting were analyzed-not just those who could afford therapy.
P.S. Whose turn is it to summarize?
By Mollyc on Sunday, November 1, 1998 - 04:20 pm:
That is all for now I think it is myturn to summarize. Molly
By Montresor on Sunday, November 1, 1998 - 07:39 pm:
By Montresor on Monday, November 2, 1998 - 11:05 pm:
I also find it funny that the book don't acknowledge the self-monitoring it mentions on page 512-513 anywhere in the Personality chapter. A high self monitor could use different theories of personality in their changes from situation to situation. The book also seems to contradict itself by describing personalities as stable in Ch.16 and how some can differ with respect to their self-monitoring.
By Mollyc on Tuesday, November 3, 1998 - 05:54 pm:
By Jene on Tuesday, November 3, 1998 - 08:46 pm:
By Mollyc on Wednesday, November 4, 1998 - 10:51 am:
By Mollyc on Wednesday, November 4, 1998 - 12:45 pm:
In our discussion the major conclusion is that personality is very complex. The questionaire taken is psychometrically designed; there fore a general data collection technique. Two group members felt it was too general. It was compared to a magazine quiz where you have three choices/ ten questions and the result tells you whether you are compatible with your mate. Not a valid way to choose your mate, or make any decision for that matter.
Another problem the group had was with the strictness of the categories. It oversimplifies the complexness of an individual. Montressor stated that this approach underempasizes emotions and the drives of individuals. And in Jene's personal example she stated that her boyfriend wanted to know how to interact with her better.
The text discusses three categories clinical, labratory, and psychometric. As already stated psychometric is a general collection of personal data. Labroratory is the reaction of individuals in a experiment. The clinical approach is where you form a hypothesis from information already collected(case studies). Montressor felt that the text was somewhat contradictory. It discussed how all individuals use self-monitoring to analyze their behavior, but it also states that an individuals' personality is stable.
In conclusion I think we can agree that their is a lot we don't know about personality and that questionnaire like this may give us some interesting outlooks; but we have to be very careful about how we interpret them and what we use this data for.
By Patricia on Friday, November 6, 1998 - 01:47 pm:
Grade = 3