In one of my classes we talked about personality tests and other related measures used for interviews. The class was boring, but the ideas we were talking about weren’t, so I wrote a lot of this post in that class (what a good example this sets).
A lot of personality tests feature polarizing question—they’ll ask, “If you have the option of going to a party or reading a book, what would you do?” My answer for this would almost always be “it depends.” What’s the book? Am I 30 pages from being finished? Is anyone I know at the party? Is this a going-away party for my best friend? There are so many variables that play into a simple question like this, yet you’re supposed to choose either book or party, and then be judged as an introvert or extrovert off of that. Obviously, there are other questions on the exam meant to support the overall test’s findings, but so many of these questions only you to respond in this dichotomous manner.
What I’ve found about regarding my personal levels of extroversion and introversion is that I display the defining qualities of both introverts and extroverts pretty frequently. This means I (along with many others) am considered an ambivert. What really determines how I’ll act is my mood and situation. Am I really happy that day? I’ll be more extraverted. Tired or sad? I’ll be introverted. Have I been really active and talked with a lot of people that day? I’ll carry over that energy, and continue to do that. Have I been keeping to myself that day? I’ll probably stick to that. And though most people may lean more to one side than I do, there really is no person that’s purely extraverted or purely introverted.
The ultimate point I’m trying to make here is that we as humans are complex, and though I think personality tests have promise, at this point they don’t do a great job of describing us. Here’s another example:
There’s this concept known as Locus of Control. It’s the idea that you are in control of your life, that what happens to you in life is the result of your work and actions, etc. There’s a personality test that measures LoC, and it tries to predict concepts like your level of self-efficacy and how much control you perceive yourself to have over your life. They ask questions like what happens to me is the result of my own actions and I am where I am today because of my actions. To me, these polarized questions just don’t include the complexities of real human lives. For example, I totally believe that a lot of what happens to you is the result of your own actions, but a lot of people face prejudice and discrimination that could legitimately prevent them from getting as far as they can go. I also think that I played a large role in getting my life to this point, but I would be mad to say I didn’t get help from my parents, or upper-middle class upbringing, or other experiences.
So when I see these types of questions, I move the tool to say I agree around 50–70%. The test comes back and tells me I have moderate Locus of Control, that I feel I control some aspects of my life, but not others. From this result, employers (and perhaps the test-taker) infer that I can’t control those other things because I don’t believe in my own ability to affect change, and not because there are just so many things that others or I cannot control. And that’s where I disagree. I have high self-efficacy, high regard for my own abilities, but I also recognize that everything I’ve accomplished isn’t solely due to me, and that others may be more disadvantaged than I am. Just another example of how personality tests don’t do a great job of capturing the complexity of human attributes.
I should say: though I’ve been railing against personality tests for not being able to capture the entire human experience, that is (1) incredibly difficult for any test to do, and (2) not necessarily the goal of personality tests. These tests are meant to provide merely a glimpse into someone’s life—there are a lot of other ways people get to know the real you, like, oh shoot what’s it called...conversing. So in a way, perhaps I’m getting bent out of shape for nothing: I’m getting frustrated because these tests aren’t serving the purpose they aren’t created to.
BUT EVEN SO these tests could do a better job of capturing the complexity that is humanity. How can something as complex as personality be boiled down to A or B? It’s just annoying to be told that I’m either a circle or a square when I’m really a star.
~~~Extra~~~
Here’s another paragraph I didn’t incorporate into the body
Another thing I’d like to note about personality tests is that if you know what an employer is searching for, it’s easy to answer questions in a way that makes you look very favorable. For example, if you’re taking an Five Factor Model test (“The Big Five,” or “OCEAN,” as some may know it) and you know that conscientious is correlated well across job performance, and neuroticism poorly, then you answer questions in a way that make you seem reliable, trustworthy, and emotionally stable. "Of course my room is always clean!” “Of course I’m not easily upset!" And if you want a promotion, just make sure to answer the questions about extraversion in a manner that paints as, well, extraverted. These correlations are not too hard to look into, and anyone with basic knowledge of this can manipulate their answers in a way that makes them appear more desirable than they may really be. Of course, it will be quickly apparent when doing the job what your real personality is like, but you don’t want to hire someone only to fire them immediately after.
~~~Further Resources~~~
Popular Personality Tests (just google them)
FFM—Five Factor Model
MBTI—Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
LoC—Locus of Control
Stuff on extraversion/introversion/ambiversion came from Susan Cain’s book, Quiet.
No comments:
Post a Comment