Top ten myths about introverts

[British Red]

I do agree its all a load of hokey - based on stating the bleeding obvious and ignoring that all things are a "scale" and somethings defy scales. There are many many aspects of personality - from "deducing to emoting" as one scale to "leading to following" in another. Where one sits on a scale depends as much on the circumstances as a natural leaning (environment vs heredity). I will lead in some circumstances, follow in others. Sometimes I am logical, other times I will follow instinct - circumstance depending.

Red

Who is, of course Dominant Red (with Blue and Yellow matched secondary and no Green at all)

 

[WoodMan]

I have been in a couple of interviews with the Foresty Commission over the years where there was an industrial head shrinker present and, I have to say, I found it very intimidating. It is also worth noting that I have been in some fairly intimidating situations in other walks of life so I don't say that lightly.

There is no way that you come across as the real you when you are trying to second guess how your answers are being interpreted.

When I worked for the National Trust they used to send us on five day management courses based on this kind of mumbo jumbo, generally staying in fairly nice hotels. I never met one person in my whole time with the organisation that believed in it. I doubt if the members would have thought that it was a very good use of their subs, especially as it often comes out of pensions.

When I interview people, I try to find out about what they will be like for others to work with. 'Whats the worst job you've ever done?' If someone says they did two years in a dog food cannery, I don't look down on them, I see someone who doesn't mind doing the dirty work and, as importantly, isn't ashamed of it.

I'm afraid I'm of the old school who still think that you can tell alot about a person by how they dress (not just the fact that they own a suit but whether or not they make the effort to look smart in it), whether they've polished their shoes, whether they are on time for the interview, whether they've done any research on the job/estate/location and whether they can look you in the eye and give a firm handshake. I don't care what the position is they are applying for, I still count these things as important.

Glyn.

 

[DaveBromley]

Well said Dave

(I hate you.)

i knew that was coming, and tbh i did think it was coming from you so apparently you are easy to pigeon hole lol

just kidding

Dave

 

[Maggot]

I have been in a couple of interviews with the Foresty Commission over the years where there was an industrial head shrinker present and, I have to say, I found it very intimidating. It is also worth noting that I have been in some fairly intimidating situations in other walks of life so I don't say that lightly.

I'm afraid I'm of the old school who still think that you can tell alot about a person by how they dress (not just the fact that they own a suit but whether or not they make the effort to look smart in it), whether they've polished their shoes, whether they are on time for the interview, whether they've done any research on the job/estate/location and whether they can look you in the eye and give a firm handshake. I don't care what the position is they are applying for, I still count these things as important.

Glyn.

Ah, but!

If a shuffling, shy, unconfident, late, trembling, muttering, ill-dressed, dirty shoed shambles walks in, and doesn't shake your hand, you are going to base your impression upon those traits as you "count them as important". Personality type questionairres are the quantifiable management equivalent of those things you do. Only based on a thin veneer of science. They are nothing more than a pseudo-scientific, and playing field levelling system for assessing applicants. Let's face it, if the shambles I described was unseen to you, you would not be able to judge them because they don't meet your personal standards, you would have to take them on their answers, not their shoes.

You need skills to discover why the person is a shambles, what questions would you ask to find out? Probably none, because they are a shambles and won't 'fit in' with your ethos. That may sound like a criticism of you, but it's really not, it's just human nature. I've interviewed people, and decided they were not getting the job before they even sat down! On one occasion because it was obviously an 'interview suit', and I was not sure how he would really dress, and didn't want to find out on the first day! We decided that another candidate would get the job, because as she crashed through the door like Mr Bean, she laughed, didn't apologise, but immediately asked, with a lovely smile, if she could have 2 minutes to compose herself.

I'm a head-shrinker though!

 

[WoodMan]

Ah, but!

If a shuffling, shy, unconfident, late, trembling, muttering, ill-dressed, dirty shoed shambles walks in, and doesn't shake your hand, you are going to base your impression upon those traits as you "count them as important". Personality type questionairres are the quantifiable management equivalent of those things you do. Only based on a thin veneer of science. They are nothing more than a pseudo-scientific, and playing field levelling system for assessing applicants. Let's face it, if the shambles I described was unseen to you, you would not be able to judge them because they don't meet your personal standards, you would have to take them on their answers, not their shoes.

You need skills to discover why the person is a shambles, what questions would you ask to find out? Probably none, because they are a shambles and won't 'fit in' with your ethos. That may sound like a criticism of you, but it's really not, it's just human nature. I've interviewed people, and decided they were not getting the job before they even sat down! On one occasion because it was obviously an 'interview suit', and I was not sure how he would really dress, and didn't want to find out on the first day! We decided that another candidate would get the job, because as she crashed through the door like Mr Bean, she laughed, didn't apologise, but immediately asked, with a lovely smile, if she could have 2 minutes to compose herself.

I'm a head-shrinker though!

I can't disagree with any of that and I certainly don't take it as a criticism. As you say, its human nature. To be fair, the only people that I have interviewed have been those applying for Warden/Ranger/Keeper/Estate Worker type jobs, so I'm looking for 'can do', self motivated, self reliant people. To he honest, I only employ people like me then wonder why they end up challenging me!! Maybe there is something in this head shrinking mumbo jumbo after all!!

I also believe in taking up references, getting people to come for second interviews and setting people practical tasks. I like to take candidates out on site where jobs are in progress and then discuss the situation with them (not in front of those doing the job though).

One thing is for certain... people are the most important element of any enterprise. The right people can achieve anything...the wrong people can destroy anything.

Glyn

 

[Swallow]

How can you equate mapping territory and terrain to mapping the human psyche, and deeper still to mapping an individual psyche, personality or mood. It is far more complex and no one really understands it as a whole without delving into individuality. That is why these pigeon holes or colour groups are invented with only a few options. Any more and it would be impossible to manage the groups. Those that do not conform to specific groups are branded. And I have seen people fail interviews and lose jobs because they fail the psyche tests. But in every other aspect would have been or are, perfect for that job.

Well in one way I'm in total agreement with you, but I think your wrath (sorry can't find a better label) is being directed at the psychological tools being used in the tests rather than the psychological tools that are carrying out the test or have paid for them.

How I can equate the two types of mapping I mentioned is What is being done has the same process, your issue (sorry I can't find a better label) seems to be with the Why i.e. dehumanising people and strip mining them, and in that aspect I'm in total agreement.

From my point of view I find the original post useful as a map for exploring and knowing myself. In much the same way as I used a map to get to the moot. But at the same time I could throw either map away and make a new one.

The map of a Human being is more complex as you say but it's still just a map because a human being is infinite (IMLTHO) and a map can never capture that. (the map is not the territory).

"EmmaD" is as much a label as "Red Dominant" but as a label it probably gives you a lot more scope to move as people have much higher and different expectations than "Red Dominant". That label will mean different things to different people especially if you have several different sets of friends where you do different things.

Tools are just tools. If you can use them they are useful. If not then they don't matter.