In a recent, stirring (in the best sense) blog post, Henry Gee questioned the acceptability of anonymous posting and commenting. I’ve always been in favour of admitting who you are (except where it puts your life/job/family at risk), because it seems otherwise you are saying that you aren’t worthwhile. It’s a sort of self-knowledge thing. But I’ve recently experienced a sort of self-knowledge thing that makes me wonder if self-knowledge isn’t overrated.
I’ve just done a personality profiling exercise, courtesy of the lovely Insights organization from bonny Dundee. I ought to stress I didn’t suddenly feel I needed to lash out and buy one of these – an ex-collegue of mine now works for Insights and I was doing it as a favour so they could calibrate it against another test.
I have to say it’s shockingly accurate. I suppose I shouldn’t really be surprised. After all, I’ve just filled in questionnaire saying what I think I am like, and have got back a report telling me what I’m like. Even so, it’s remarkable the way the response to those little preference questions has come out with a profile that’s not only pretty much how I think I am (including the bits I’d prefer not to admit), but the way the other occupants of Clegg Towers tend to see me.
Here are a couple of highlights for your delectation. Part of the summary makes it clear that I am archetypal mad scientist material:
Brian tends to be seen as strong, analytical and impersonal. Good at organising, decisive, quick, logical and strong in reasoning power, he values truth in the form of fact, formula, method and judgement. He is prepared to make high risk decisions. He seeks realistic and satisfying solutions to challenges. Brian is self-reliant and is not frightened to take ‘the path of maximum resistance’ in his efforts to produce the best results. He will pursue all possible avenues of a solution to any problem that captures his interest.
And I absolutely love one of the items in my list of ‘possible weaknesses’:
- Should avoid china shops
Finally, for those into these sort of things, you may like to know that in Insights’ terminology I’m a reforming director, and in Myers-Briggs/Jungian terminology I’m ENT (they don’t identify it, but the last one is P)
We did some personality testing here at Nature a while back. Apparently I’m a specialist plant. I always wanted to be a Venus fly-trap, but despite my best efforts I always turn out as one of these.
Charming, I’m sure.
Specialist plant? Tres Belbin, as we say in management circles.
Tres Belbin
Who he? A French pop star?
???
Henry – perhaps they meant that you were planted by some other organisation to discredit Nature. Judging by the reaction to the latest issue, you were planted by PLoS.
Snort.
But PLoS wasn’t there twenty years ago…
Henry – in case your query was genuine, the word ‘tres’ was indeed French, so I could have said ‘Very Belbin.’
Dr R. Meredith Belbin is the developer of the particular version of personality profiles he calls ‘team roles’ and uses the highly confusing term ‘plant’ for one of these roles. So in referring to yourself as a specialist plant you were being very (tres) Belbin.
Plants are wacko creative types, full of ideas, but often bad communicators (!) – unlike most of the other Belbin categories, it’s a deeply silly name that gives no suggestion of what it’s supposed to represent. Specialists, more predictably, are experts in their field, hot on learning.
The Myers-Briggs system, by contrast, uses Jung’s paired types, in a series of four paired opposites: Introvert/Extrovert, Sensing/iNtuitive, Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Perceiving. On this I am ENTP.
Insights is also based on Jungian types, but uses a ‘colour wheel’ that divides the eight major types (excluding J/P) into a remarkably detailed 72 subtypes (depending on the balance between your different inclinations), with the opportunity to have different types in your conscious and ‘less conscious’ persona.
… you really didn’t want to know all that, did you?
It was a genuine query, and thanks for that clarification. It was probably the Belbin scheme I am thinking of. We did Myers-Briggs too, but I can’t remember how I scored on that.
I’ll resist the obvious retort to the 20 years ago comment because I can’t face the risk of (more) spleen being vented. Vehemently.
Brian: you write ‘possible weaknesses’ . Clearly these survey people are napping on the job. They should say “areas for personal development”. Tsk tsk. “Weakness” is a very non-PC, non-2008 expression. I am sure Henry whateverhisnamenowis will have something to say about this.
PS Henry has obviously not been on enough management courses and been subjected to Belbin, Myers-Briggs et al. I have been on a couple and look what happened to me. QED.
Maxine – if they’d been a US company they definitely would have said ‘areas for personal developmentary increasitude’ or whatever, but being Scottish, the fact that they said ‘Strengths’ and ‘Possible Weaknesses.’ was being quite gentle. We’re lucky they don’t say ‘Why you’re a total waste of space, Jimmy.’
To be fair, they do soften it a bit with a commentary that says ‘Jung said “wisdom accepts that all things have two sides”. It has also been said that a weakness is simply an overused strength.’
However, I do think the sort of approach that can make the china shop remark has a certain tongue-in-cheek appeal.
Incidentally, since two of my other possible weaknesses are:
… you’re lucky I read your rubbish comments at all. :-)