The I Ching, or "Book of Changes," is an ancient Chinese text and philosophical guide. It's built on a foundation of 64 symbols called hexagrams, each representing a unique combination of six broken or solid lines representing the yin and yang of the cosmos. The reader asks a question or contemplates a situation, and through a process involving coin tosses or yarrow sticks, a hexagram is generated. The reader then consults the I Ching to correlate the passage to the hexagram.
The hexagrams contain layers of wisdom, including an interpretation of the circumstances, advice on how to navigate them, and potential outcomes. The I Ching helps individuals develop a sense of profound awareness. It's a tool for introspection, aiding in making thoughtful choices and finding harmony amidst life's changes.
Except it doesn't and it isn't. Don't get me wrong, the I Ching is a fascinating text. It is part of the Taoist canon, but is not central to the philosophy of Taoism. There are many beautiful passages that one can interpret to fit their circumstance. But that's the point-- the reader takes the information and interprets it in a way that fits their desire for validation. Reading the I Ching is similar to other forms of divination, whether reading tea leaves, sheep entrails, or the Sunday horoscope.
Corporations, universities, governments and other institutions engage in a form of divination when they use personality tests as a way to categorize employees and apply broad characteristics to individuals. Ostensibly their motivation is to help team members understand each other's personalities, communication styles, strengths, and weaknesses. In theory, this understanding can improve collaboration, communication, and overall team dynamics. Psychologists, Sociologists, and other "Ologists" engaged in the study of personalities have come up with a variety of methods to identify the individual and tuck them into neat categories. Some of the more popular tests include the Five Factor Model, DISC Assessment, 16PF, and the Enneagram. One of the more well known personality tests is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Unfortunately, the MBTI has many flaws, not the least of which is that neither Meyers nor Briggs had any training in psychology.
Then we have Holland's RIASEC Model, which is often used in career counseling. The model, also known as the Holland Codes or Holland's Occupational Themes, was developed by psychologist John L. Holland in the 1950s. It categorizes individuals into one or more of six personality types based on their interests and preferences. The acronym "RIASEC" stands for the following six types:
Realistic (R): Individuals with a realistic personality type are practical, hands-on, and enjoy working with tools, machines, or physical materials. (Sounds like a stagehand to me)
Investigative (I): Investigative types are curious. They thrive in environments that allow them to explore new ideas and concepts. (I call that a designer all day long.)
Artistic (A): Artistic individuals are creative, expressive, and enjoy using their imagination to produce art, music, literature, or other forms of self-expression. (Your basic actor type.)
Social (S): Social personality types are empathetic, nurturing, and enjoy helping and interacting with others. (House Manager, don't you think?)
Enterprising (E): Enterprising individuals are ambitious, persuasive, and enjoy taking on leadership roles. (Directors and Producers. Could it be more on the nose?)
Conventional (C): Conventional personality types are organized, detail-oriented, and prefer working with established procedures. Conventional individuals excel in roles that require precision, accuracy, and adherence to rules and regulations. (If that's not a Stage Manager I don't know what is.)
My point in parentheses is that there is space for a wide variety of career paths in the performing arts for people with different personality types. In Holland's model, individuals may possess a combination of several of these personality types, with one or two types typically being dominant. The danger is that a well meaning occupational career counselor may guide someone with a dominant Realistic characteristic toward auto repair or farming because they've categorized them based on their personality, not their passion. Back in my dim history I recall taking a standardized career aptitude test from the high school career counselor. The counselor told me I was supposed to be a mortician.
Dr. Paul E. Meehl (1920–2003) was an influential psychologist known for his contributions to clinical psychology. His work suggested that statistical models often outperformed clinical judgment in predicting various outcomes, challenging the prevailing belief in the superiority of clinical intuition based on "types." His opinion can be summed up in his introduction to a 1956 article in American Psychologist:
Once upon a time there was a young fellow who, as we say, was “vocationally maladjusted.” He wasn’t sure just what the trouble was, but he knew that he was not happy in his work. So, being a denizen of an urban, sophisticated, psychologically oriented culture, he concluded that what he needed was some professional guidance. He went to the counseling bureau of a large midwestern university (according to some versions of the tale, it was located on the banks of a great river), and there he was interviewed by a world-famous vocational psychologist. When the psychologist explained that it would first be necessary to take a 14-hour battery of tests, the young man hesitated a little; after all, he was still employed at his job and 14 hours seemed like quite a lot of time. “Oh, well,” said the great psychologist reassuringly, “don’t worry about that. If you’re too busy, you can arrange to have my assistant take these tests for you. I don’t care who takes them, just so long as they come out in quantitative form."
Meehl also coined the term "Barnum Effect." (from the showman P.T. Barnum, who famously said "there's a sucker born every minute.") Also known as the Forer effect, it refers to the tendency for individuals to accept vague or general personality descriptions as highly accurate and personally applicable, even though the descriptions could apply to a wide range of people. The phenomenon was first demonstrated by psychologist Bertram R. Forer in 1948. Forer gave his students a personality test and then provided each student with a personalized analysis of their results. In reality, all the students received the same generic description, which contained a mix of positive and flattering statements that could apply to nearly anyone. Despite the lack of specificity in the descriptions, the students overwhelmingly rated the accuracy of the analysis as high.
Personality tests can be a useful tool, but they do not paint the whole picture of the individual. A good career coach can guide someone along the right career path. If you really want to gain insight into what makes you tick, a good psychotherapist is there to take a deeper dive into self-discovery. In the meantime, if you want to believe that Saturn is rising and that's the perfect time to get out of bed and apply for that job, great. If you're at a company that is deciding your future based on a personality test, take it with a grain of alomancy.
______________________________
Paul E. Meehl. Wanted--A Good Cookbook. American Psychologist, 1956, 11, 263–272.