4 ms·

There's a chapter in the book "Automate This"[1] (Chapter 7) that deals with research that will make you highly effective in communicating with other people. It

There's a chapter in the book "Automate This"[1] (Chapter 7) that deals with research that will make you highly effective in communicating with other people. It focuses on the research of a man called Dr. Taibi Kahler[2], who broadly breaks people down into 6 categories: 1. Emotions driven people 2. Thoughts based people 3. Actions driven people 4. Reflections driven people 5. Opinions driven people 6. Reactions based people Everybody has a mix of some/all of the above, but one personality type dominates. Before you scream "bullshit!", bear in mind that this research has been used by NASA to ensure that personality types that don't mix well don't end up as astronauts together in extremely dangerous space missions, and it also helped Bill Clinton to unseat an incumbent president in the 1992 US Presidential race. Here's a simple article about it: http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/business/dr-taibi-kahlers-secret-to-making-a-great-first-impression http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/busine... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Automate-This-Algorithms-Markets-World/dp/1591846528/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381666183&sr=8-1&keywords=automate+this http://www.amazon.com/Automate-This-Algorithms-Markets-World... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taibi_Kahler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taibi_Kahler

acomar 13y ago
> Before you scream "bullshit!", bear in mind that this research has been used by NASA to ensure that personality types that don't mix well don't end up as astronauts together in extremely dangerous space missions, and it also helped Bill Clinton to unseat an incumbent president in the 1992 US Presidential race. In what way are either of those things evidence in support of your claims...? NASA might be interested in this research but this appeal to authority is fallacious -- NASA is an organization interested in physics and astronomy. If you told me NASA claimed someone found water on Pluto, I'd believe you. But personality tests are not that. And presidential races are just so full of BS to begin with. This last cycle was proof of that. It's basically impossible to say that anything in particular helped any given candidate in any given year, but every pundit loves to speculate anyway. So there's plenty of theorizing to go around. Nothing you posted (including in your citations) gives me any kind of predictive link between the theory you espouse and how people will actually behave. To make matters worse: > Everybody has a mix of some/all of the above, but one personality type dominates. Makes the whole thing sound vacuous.
Pitarou 13y ago
Oh splendid. Yet another theory that breaks down people into "types" and tells us that we have to handle these different "types" in different ways. I'll put it on the shelf next to Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, the four hippocratic humours, "left-brain vs. right-brain", Myers-Brigg, the various zodiac systems, blood group personality theory (very popular here in Japan) and all the other dross Take, for instance, Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. That's the one that talks about kinaesthetic intelligence, verbal intelligence and so on. It is unusual, because it actually makes a prediction that we can test: students do best when taught in a style that most closely matches their intelligence type (the "meshing hypothesis"). There are many studies that claim to test and support the meshing hypothesis. But, to cut a long story short, most of them test a different version of the hypothesis that is so weak as to be almost tautological. The very few that really do test the meshing hypothesis invariably do NOT support it. After 30 years of looking for evidence to support Gardner's theories, the American Psychological Association gave up, and announced that, unless and until somebody produces some hard evidence, they will consider the theory discredited. So is that the end for multiple intelligence? Hardly! Teacher training colleges still teach it. Elite schools still publish reports describing the wonderful results they got when they modified their curriculum according to Gardner's recommendations. (Invariably, it turns out they did nothing of the sort. They just introduced more variety into their classroom activities -- they certainly DIDN'T target particular activities towards particular learners.) And so on. You cite the following evidence in support of Kahler's theories: 1. The Clintons support it. 2. NASA talked to Kahler when they were developing their astronaut recruitment program. To the former, I say, "so what"? As for the latter, I actually took a nanosecond to follow the links you gave, and what they said was something like, "Kahler told the NASA scientists to screen out the quitters". Well, I guess that's an important point, but I'd hardly call it a complete vindication for his theories. So I scream "bullshit!". And I will continue to do so until you show me: 1. A non-trivial, falsifiable prediction grounded in Kahler's work. 2. A good quality study that tests this prediction and finds in Kahler's favor.

acomar 13y ago

> Before you scream "bullshit!", bear in mind that this research has been used by NASA to ensure that personality types that don't mix well don't end up as astronauts together in extremely dangerous space missions, and it also helped Bill Clinton to unseat an incumbent president in the 1992 US Presidential race. In what way are either of those things evidence in support of your claims...? NASA might be interested in this research but this appeal to authority is fallacious -- NASA is an organization interested in physics and astronomy. If you told me NASA claimed someone found water on Pluto, I'd believe you. But personality tests are not that. And presidential races are just so full of BS to begin with. This last cycle was proof of that. It's basically impossible to say that anything in particular helped any given candidate in any given year, but every pundit loves to speculate anyway. So there's plenty of theorizing to go around. Nothing you posted (including in your citations) gives me any kind of predictive link between the theory you espouse and how people will actually behave. To make matters worse: > Everybody has a mix of some/all of the above, but one personality type dominates. Makes the whole thing sound vacuous.

Pitarou 13y ago

Oh splendid. Yet another theory that breaks down people into "types" and tells us that we have to handle these different "types" in different ways. I'll put it on the shelf next to Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, the four hippocratic humours, "left-brain vs. right-brain", Myers-Brigg, the various zodiac systems, blood group personality theory (very popular here in Japan) and all the other dross Take, for instance, Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. That's the one that talks about kinaesthetic intelligence, verbal intelligence and so on. It is unusual, because it actually makes a prediction that we can test: students do best when taught in a style that most closely matches their intelligence type (the "meshing hypothesis"). There are many studies that claim to test and support the meshing hypothesis. But, to cut a long story short, most of them test a different version of the hypothesis that is so weak as to be almost tautological. The very few that really do test the meshing hypothesis invariably do NOT support it. After 30 years of looking for evidence to support Gardner's theories, the American Psychological Association gave up, and announced that, unless and until somebody produces some hard evidence, they will consider the theory discredited. So is that the end for multiple intelligence? Hardly! Teacher training colleges still teach it. Elite schools still publish reports describing the wonderful results they got when they modified their curriculum according to Gardner's recommendations. (Invariably, it turns out they did nothing of the sort. They just introduced more variety into their classroom activities -- they certainly DIDN'T target particular activities towards particular learners.) And so on. You cite the following evidence in support of Kahler's theories: 1. The Clintons support it. 2. NASA talked to Kahler when they were developing their astronaut recruitment program. To the former, I say, "so what"? As for the latter, I actually took a nanosecond to follow the links you gave, and what they said was something like, "Kahler told the NASA scientists to screen out the quitters". Well, I guess that's an important point, but I'd hardly call it a complete vindication for his theories. So I scream "bullshit!". And I will continue to do so until you show me: 1. A non-trivial, falsifiable prediction grounded in Kahler's work. 2. A good quality study that tests this prediction and finds in Kahler's favor.