Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3. . .

I've just been going thru a few tests and I have to admit that my preconceived dislike of such quantification of people, ideas and feelings makes me feel very uneasy when doing this sort of thing.

I tried the Jung one first and found it ludicrous. Like Karl I was bored but also struck by how leading and either/or the questions were. For example:

"Objective criticism is always useful in any activity".
this may be true in some situations but it depends wholly on the actual interpretation of objective and who is doing the interpretation. iow quizzes like this are divorced from actual existence. Power relationships and structures define what is objective.

"You get bored if you have to read theoretical books".
yes I do if its a load of old tosh but if its not then I'm riveted!

My 'score' came out as INTJ which I'n not quite sure how to interpret. Clicking on the link brings me to a page that keeps mentioning 'Mastermind' - (I'm shopping online right now for a white cat, nehru collar silver suit and a second hand underwater criminal base - all for 1 meeelion dollars!). the bit that caught me was :

"In their careers, Masterminds usually rise to positions of responsibility, for they work long and hard and are dedicated in their pursuit of goals, sparing neither their own time and effort nor that of their colleagues and employees"

Nope. Sorry!

The more I think about it, the more I dislike these tests. They are so simplistic (especially the emotional intelligence one)! And all of them are biased!! There are all these assumptions beneath each of these tests- there is always a 'normal`, a standard way... as an individual

I agree with Kayo here but would go further. My instinct tells me that this is a mechanism for control to ensure that only those that will not threaten the status quo can ever achieve positions of authority. I know it sounds like a totally personal opinion (and ironically how could you ever prove any such thing?). But, ask yourselves, how come every manager/politician/finance holder looks, sounds and behaves the same? Next time there is an article on the news on telly about the recession, just as a banking head or senior executive is about to come and say his piece, close your eyes and see if you can imagine what he looks like. turn off the sound, write down what you think he's going to say and then check on iplayer. How come we almost always get it right?

Ah, but that's maybe the point - are we all being put in boxes?
You did seem to find the results flattering, but as you admit, a lot of this can be self-fulfilling. So, if a test says you're hard-working, do you put in that extra effort to prove it? Are these really just more methods of control?

I'm troubled by a society that has no qualms about taking a human being or group of human beings and reducing them to something that can classified, categorised and easily referenced. Its just a stone's throw away from creative, emotional and intellectual genocide. The systematic eradication of difference. Think about it.

I also think the quantification process is important now to employers - as it is to us educators

I'm not sure about educators (employers most definitely). Its not important to me or, when I asked them today, anyone else on my team!

At work I'm inundated right now with peer obs, teaching and learning style tests, PPRD, PMAR and a zillion other 'reflective tools for self development and evaluation'. what they all have in common is identifying anything 'non conformist' about me and labelling it as somehow undesirable.

The FIT one gives me some weird results but again I found the questions bizarre. In the genital category apparently:

you appear to have a conventional, closeminded, and regressive outlook on life. Change is an inevitable and positive part of life, learn to contribute to it, not fear it or oppose it

This is for me bizarre. yes, I can be a little difficult to dissuade from some of my views at times (altho in my defence I need to experience something persuasive rather than be told that I must afford something that status regardless). However there is no questioning of what 'change' means. who defines what changes and what doesn't. is all change necessarily good? One of the biggest problems I have had in my career is working for people who won't change! People who can affect change but don't.

the same test also gives me for the anal score (this sounds so much like a 1980's gay pron movie!):

you appear to have a good balance of self control and spontaneity, order and chaos, variety and selectivity.

go figure.

I am struck by how my mood and feelings can affect my perception of myself and those around me. I've taken IQ tests many times and my score veers between 116 and 164. today I got 126 but recognise that I've not had a good day and don't feel good about myself.

Quantification of employees must help when the Investors in People people come round

I got interviewed by the ILP people and they asked me what I thought the college needed to do. I told them that we needed to sack the entire management spine and relieve the board of governors. The other 5 people in the room with me agreed and the floodgates literally opened! yet our input didn't affect anything. The college still got the ILP status and went on to state boldly that the award proved that staff felt highly valued! Does this mean that the feedback from 6 people gets dismissed as rogue data or anomalous results? Troubling.