<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Personality and Psychometrics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/</link>
	<description>Leading People to Lead People</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:34:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/comment-page-1/#comment-2467</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:15:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfleadership.com/blog/?p=392#comment-2467</guid>
		<description>Actually its a fundamental misunderstanding of the MBTI to state that a person is either an extravert or an introvert. We all do both extraverted and introverted things, sensing and intuitive things, thinking and feeling things etc. Most people just have a preference for one more than the other. The environment does influence how accurately we measure those preferences as well. There is a clear distinction with trait theory where we are labelled as dominant because we have a particular &#039;amount&#039; of dominance. In Type theory, we arent boxed in by our preferences. We are in fact free to make choices about our behaviours.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually its a fundamental misunderstanding of the MBTI to state that a person is either an extravert or an introvert. We all do both extraverted and introverted things, sensing and intuitive things, thinking and feeling things etc. Most people just have a preference for one more than the other. The environment does influence how accurately we measure those preferences as well. There is a clear distinction with trait theory where we are labelled as dominant because we have a particular &#8216;amount&#8217; of dominance. In Type theory, we arent boxed in by our preferences. We are in fact free to make choices about our behaviours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reading People &#124; Self Leadership Coaching Blog</title>
		<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/comment-page-1/#comment-2186</link>
		<dc:creator>Reading People &#124; Self Leadership Coaching Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfleadership.com/blog/?p=392#comment-2186</guid>
		<description>[...] have previously written about psychometric tests which are used in a corporate setting to understand employees personalities and get the best from [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] have previously written about psychometric tests which are used in a corporate setting to understand employees personalities and get the best from [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Polly</title>
		<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/comment-page-1/#comment-1803</link>
		<dc:creator>Polly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfleadership.com/blog/?p=392#comment-1803</guid>
		<description>Interesting article. Thank you. I must look into Big5. As a consultant, I like to use the Team Management Profile with my learners. It&#039;s not a &#039;personality&#039; tool as such. Rather it gives feedback on how people like to work in their jobs. Whereas personality, by definition, is stable, the team management profile feedback is framed up in terms of work preference - which is something that is dynamic and may change over time. I find my learners respond well to this feedback. And it makes my facilitating work a lot easier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article. Thank you. I must look into Big5. As a consultant, I like to use the Team Management Profile with my learners. It&#8217;s not a &#8216;personality&#8217; tool as such. Rather it gives feedback on how people like to work in their jobs. Whereas personality, by definition, is stable, the team management profile feedback is framed up in terms of work preference &#8211; which is something that is dynamic and may change over time. I find my learners respond well to this feedback. And it makes my facilitating work a lot easier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Githaiga Kamau</title>
		<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/comment-page-1/#comment-899</link>
		<dc:creator>Githaiga Kamau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfleadership.com/blog/?p=392#comment-899</guid>
		<description>I am working with unemployed young people in slum areas in Nairobi and would like to get a tool that can help them in understanding themselves as we work through of issues of self leadership. Which of the tools is simple and easy to work with-preferably not done online due to difficulty of accessing computers.
Githaiga</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am working with unemployed young people in slum areas in Nairobi and would like to get a tool that can help them in understanding themselves as we work through of issues of self leadership. Which of the tools is simple and easy to work with-preferably not done online due to difficulty of accessing computers.<br />
Githaiga</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RaiulBaztepo</title>
		<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/comment-page-1/#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>RaiulBaztepo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfleadership.com/blog/?p=392#comment-360</guid>
		<description>Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource! 
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I&#039;v just started to learn this language ;)
See you! 
Your, Raiul Baztepo</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello!<br />
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!<br />
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I&#8217;v just started to learn this language <img src='http://selfleadership.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
See you!<br />
Your, Raiul Baztepo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Bryant</title>
		<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/comment-page-1/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Bryant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfleadership.com/blog/?p=392#comment-100</guid>
		<description>Thank you for your comment. Big 5 factor theory does not measure emotions BUT emotionality, sometimes called Neuroticism, Anxiety or Stress Tolerance. Emotionality affects how the other 4 factors work. For example if someone is high on the emotionality scale, the negative factors of the trait will be more visible.
I too am a fan of DISC, it is a &#039;quick and dirty&#039; tool that can be used as a broad brush to describe type, but only measures 2 traits.
We all have our favourite instruments and so I know my post will cause some reaction, however I urge you to step back from preference and look to the research, especially Costa and McRrae (1987) and Cattell and Brand (1984).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your comment. Big 5 factor theory does not measure emotions BUT emotionality, sometimes called Neuroticism, Anxiety or Stress Tolerance. Emotionality affects how the other 4 factors work. For example if someone is high on the emotionality scale, the negative factors of the trait will be more visible.<br />
I too am a fan of DISC, it is a &#8216;quick and dirty&#8217; tool that can be used as a broad brush to describe type, but only measures 2 traits.<br />
We all have our favourite instruments and so I know my post will cause some reaction, however I urge you to step back from preference and look to the research, especially Costa and McRrae (1987) and Cattell and Brand (1984).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ong</title>
		<link>http://selfleadership.com/blog/topic/leadership/personality-and-psychometrics/comment-page-1/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>Ong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selfleadership.com/blog/?p=392#comment-89</guid>
		<description>It is my understanding that &quot;personality&quot; tests that promote the combination of &quot;emotion&quot; and inherent genetic brain processing, are flawed since the combination possibilities are in the millions, 16.8 million to be exact.

I am  certified in DISC (behavioural), MBTI (i agree it is flawed) and CBCI. Personally, I find, and so do training participants, the CBCI which only identifies brain processing and brain communication a much more accurate representation of perception. This, in conjunction with Emotional drive identification using CBC Cards (provided by Directive Communication International who also designed the CBCI - Colored Brain Communication Inventory) gives a very accurate and nondiscriminatory representation of how people act and react to each other. A much ore practical model in my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is my understanding that &#8220;personality&#8221; tests that promote the combination of &#8220;emotion&#8221; and inherent genetic brain processing, are flawed since the combination possibilities are in the millions, 16.8 million to be exact.</p>
<p>I am  certified in DISC (behavioural), MBTI (i agree it is flawed) and CBCI. Personally, I find, and so do training participants, the CBCI which only identifies brain processing and brain communication a much more accurate representation of perception. This, in conjunction with Emotional drive identification using CBC Cards (provided by Directive Communication International who also designed the CBCI &#8211; Colored Brain Communication Inventory) gives a very accurate and nondiscriminatory representation of how people act and react to each other. A much ore practical model in my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

