user story mapping examples?

[izabel_blue]

Hello!

I've been reading lots of Jeff Patton's work on User Story Mapping and am going to try to introduce it into my organisation next week. I've read everything I can find online but I'm just wondering - does anyone out there have a good clear JPG or GIF of a user story map that I could show my team as an example? I'm really looking for one with real data in it ideally!

Oh, and any tips and tricks on making this technique work?

Kind regards,

Elizabeth (aka Izabel_blue)

[Jon Kern]

Kind of a key for UX, domain modeling, architecting, and other creative
activities

http://technicaldebt.com/archives/2009_05.html#000872

A fun little test for you :-)

jon
blog: http://technicaldebt.wetpaint.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/JonKernPA




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:agile-usability-digest@...
    mailto:agile-usability-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    agile-usability-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Larry Constantine]

Jon,

Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which doctors?
How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
"right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
"right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
"left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
"Find Waldo" type pastimes.

I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned in
psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
much subtler than the simplistic popular models.

--Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
  Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
  University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal

[Adrian Howard]

On 7 May 2009, at 12:11, Larry Constantine wrote:
[snip]
> I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although  
> still
> pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely  
> abandoned in
> psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out  
> to be
> much subtler than the simplistic popular models.
[snip]

Hurrah! Somebody beat me to my usual rant on this topic :-)

Adrian

--
delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adrianh@...

[Jon Kern]

Thanks Larry/(Adrian),

You are entitled to your bean raining/usual rants -- as long as you took
the test <g>.

One of the things I wish I added to the poll...

    * Are you in a technical field? Y/N
    * What were you doing in the 15 minutes prior to the test?
          o Technical problem-solving sort of work
          o Not much: relaxing, light reading, eating, etc

Because, whether it is based on "brain facts" or not, it is still fun to
hear my IT friends get tripped up on the test, yet their spouses or kids
see it immediately. And whether it is based on LEFT/RIGHT or merely the
ability for your brain to process the image faster or slower, I find it
interesting anecdotal evidence.

Personally, I find that I am more creative when doing mundane things
(shower, mowing the lawn, etc.). I guess if it is a myth of that being
dubbed "right-brained"activity ... so be it.

Could it be that the "right brain/left brain" in popular vernacular is
possibly just a term that is useful in that it serves as an alias for
the types of activity than it is for describing the true spatial
location of the actual activity? In other words, it is a handy "model"
that may not be precise as parsed, but accurate for the purpose of
describing the net effect and for /communicating/. It might not be
accurate if you are a brain scientist defending your PhD dissertation on
the subject... (Kind of like saying to a layperson that a software
application is made up of human readable source code, when we all know
it is much more complex than that. But this too is a handy /illusion/
that serves a purpose to /communicate/ to those that do not need the
accuracy.)

I did find a nice link to support your point:
http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm

I also found this coffee bean illusion and others here:
http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/illusion/illusions.htm

Thanks for pointing this "controversy" out... The complexities of the
brain are at once fascinating and humbling. I'm sure in another 20 years
scientists will posit yet further theories about the brain to refute
today's.

jon

jon
blog: http://technicaldebt.wetpaint.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/JonKernPA



Larry Constantine said the following on 5/7/09 7:11 AM:

> Jon,
>
> Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
> has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
> give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which doctors?
> How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
> anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
> "right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
> "right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
> "left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
> "Find Waldo" type pastimes.
>
> I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
> pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned in
> psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
> much subtler than the simplistic popular models.
>
> --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
>   Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
>   University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
>
>
>
>  

[Adrian Howard]

On 8 May 2009, at 17:06, Jon Kern wrote:

> Thanks Larry/(Adrian),
>
> You are entitled to your bean raining/usual rants -- as long as you  
> took
> the test <g>.

More than a minute, under five. Probably not a fair time coz I knew it  
would either be an actual image - or a pattern in the beans - so I was  
looking for it in a particular way :-)

[snip]
> Because, whether it is based on "brain facts" or not, it is still  
> fun to
> hear my IT friends get tripped up on the test, yet their spouses or  
> kids
> see it immediately. And whether it is based on LEFT/RIGHT or merely  
> the
> ability for your brain to process the image faster or slower, I find  
> it
> interesting anecdotal evidence.
[snip]

Also possibly dangerous anecdotal data :-) Maybe it's not a creative  
distinction. Maybe there's no distinction at all (your sample size is  
small). Maybe it's a distinction of folk who were looking for a  
"trick" in the image - rather than a literal picture. Maybe it's the  
environment the question is framed in. Maybe it's rested vs tired  
rather than technical vs creative Maybe...

The real problem I've found with the left/right thing is that it  
becomes a label. You can't do X coz you're a left brain type. You  
can't do Y coz you're a right brain type. Etc. This is, in my  
experience, a deeply harmful outlook for people. Especially when the  
labels are mythical :-)

Even if you take the original research by Fink and Marshall at face  
value they were not saying anything about personality types - but  
instead were talking about where different kinds of mental processes  
happened. The idea of left/right brain dominance is just pop-
psychology - and is about as useful as astrology.

.... erm... ranting aren't I.... sorry!

If you want a really dramatic example of how silly the left/right  
brain thing is - have a google around hemispherectomy - scary... but  
fascinating stuff :-)

Cheers,

Adrian

[Jon Kern]

 > The real problem I've found with the left/right thing is that it
becomes a label.

That would be a problem, as labels usually are... the original goofy
thing i saw on this at least mentioned that you can work to improve
either "side" of the brain... Which I think is a truism.

As far as your other "it could be this, it could be that's" -- agreed.
Who knows what really goes on in such exercises of the mind.

Maybe the "test" should be given in varying order with and without a
sudoku puzzle <g>.

jon
blog: http://technicaldebt.wetpaint.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/JonKernPA



Adrian Howard said the following on 5/10/09 9:22 AM:

>
>
>
> On 8 May 2009, at 17:06, Jon Kern wrote:
>
> > Thanks Larry/(Adrian),
> >
> > You are entitled to your bean raining/usual rants -- as long as you
> > took
> > the test <g>.
>
> More than a minute, under five. Probably not a fair time coz I knew it
> would either be an actual image - or a pattern in the beans - so I was
> looking for it in a particular way :-)
>
> [snip]
> > Because, whether it is based on "brain facts" or not, it is still
> > fun to
> > hear my IT friends get tripped up on the test, yet their spouses or
> > kids
> > see it immediately. And whether it is based on LEFT/RIGHT or merely
> > the
> > ability for your brain to process the image faster or slower, I find
> > it
> > interesting anecdotal evidence.
> [snip]
>
> Also possibly dangerous anecdotal data :-) Maybe it's not a creative
> distinction. Maybe there's no distinction at all (your sample size is
> small). Maybe it's a distinction of folk who were looking for a
> "trick" in the image - rather than a literal picture. Maybe it's the
> environment the question is framed in. Maybe it's rested vs tired
> rather than technical vs creative Maybe...
>
> The real problem I've found with the left/right thing is that it
> becomes a label. You can't do X coz you're a left brain type. You
> can't do Y coz you're a right brain type. Etc. This is, in my
> experience, a deeply harmful outlook for people. Especially when the
> labels are mythical :-)
>
> Even if you take the original research by Fink and Marshall at face
> value they were not saying anything about personality types - but
> instead were talking about where different kinds of mental processes
> happened. The idea of left/right brain dominance is just pop-
> psychology - and is about as useful as astrology.
>
> .... erm... ranting aren't I.... sorry!
>
> If you want a really dramatic example of how silly the left/right
> brain thing is - have a google around hemispherectomy - scary... but
> fascinating stuff :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>

[Tim Wright-3]

Usefully, I've just finished reading "The Human Mind" by Robert Winston. I
think he puts it quite nicely:

"While the left and right hemispheres of our brain each have identical
structures and in normal circumstances are in constant communication with
each other, each half also houses somewhat different functions. Having said
that, the two sides of the brain are in constant communication with each
other. In most people, the left side tends to do more analytical processing.
As well as being the site of language faculties in most people, it is also
often responsible for aspects of reason and deduction. The right side, in
contrast, tends to be a much more holistic machine.

"Much has been written, often without good evidence, about the difference
between the function of the right side of the brain and the left side....."

Essentially: there are differences between the two sides of the brain.
However, in normal circumstances, it doesn't usually matter at all.

However, rather than rely on the pop-culture meaning of right/left brain
being thinking/feeling, I'd prefer to rely on the Thinking/Feeling spectrum
of the Myers Briggs survey - it's actually based on some half-decent
research (allbeit 50 odd years old now).

Tim


On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Larry Constantine
<lconstantine@...>wrote:

>
>
> Jon,
>
> Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
> has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
> give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which
> doctors?
> How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
> anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
> "right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
> "right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
> "left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
> "Find Waldo" type pastimes.
>
> I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
> pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned in
> psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
> much subtler than the simplistic popular models.
>
> --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
> Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
> University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
>
>  
>

[Marjorie H Pries]

I think everybody who was interested enough to comment on or keep reading
this thread should investigate the book, "On Being Certain: Believing you
Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert Burton.

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209

He presents some very engaging and profound philosophical discussions
about selective perception, the known mechanics of  brain function and
probable role of evolution that give insights into things like this little
game....when you consciously and diligently look for the man, you don't
see him, but when you turn that processing off and let what some people
refer to as intuition take over, he pops right out at you.



Marjorie H. Pries
Lead Consultant / Utility Infielder

ThoughtWorks, Inc.
http://www.thoughtworks.com

"Don't believe everything you think."
     --seen on a bumpersticker



Tim Wright <sambo.shacklock@...>
Sent by: agile-usability@...
05/12/2009 03:00 PM
Please respond to
agile-usability@...


To
agile-usability@...
cc

Subject
Re: [agile-usability] Is your right brain active?












Usefully, I've just finished reading "The Human Mind" by Robert Winston. I
think he puts it quite nicely:

"While the left and right hemispheres of our brain each have identical
structures and in normal circumstances are in constant communication with
each other, each half also houses somewhat different functions. Having
said that, the two sides of the brain are in constant communication with
each other. In most people, the left side tends to do more analytical
processing. As well as being the site of language faculties in most
people, it is also often responsible for aspects of reason and deduction.
The right side, in contrast, tends to be a much more holistic machine.

"Much has been written, often without good evidence, about the difference
between the function of the right side of the brain and the left
side....."

Essentially: there are differences between the two sides of the brain.
However, in normal circumstances, it doesn't usually matter at all.

However, rather than rely on the pop-culture meaning of right/left brain
being thinking/feeling, I'd prefer to rely on the Thinking/Feeling
spectrum of the Myers Briggs survey - it's actually based on some
half-decent research (allbeit 50 odd years old now).

Tim


On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Larry Constantine <
lconstantine@...> wrote:


Jon,

Hate to rain on the beans, but this popular and widely distributed "test"
has been around for many years and is totally without foundation. The
give-away that this is made up is "Doctors have concluded..." Which
doctors?
How? Not only is this not research based but to the extent it tests
anything, it is most likely testing aspects of visual processing, not
"right-brain/left-brain." If it were evaluating any documented aspect of
"right-brain/left-brain" processing, it is what is more likely to be
"left-brain" attention to detail and serial processing, much as used in
"Find Waldo" type pastimes.

I use the quotes around "right-brain/left-brain" because, although still
pervasive in the popular culture the paradigm has been largely abandoned
in
psychology; much of what is attributed to lateralization turns out to be
much subtler than the simplistic popular models.

--Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal





 
 

[Ron Jeffries]

Hello, Marjorie.  On Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 7:40:09 AM, you
wrote:

> I think everybody who was interested enough to comment on or keep reading
> this thread should investigate the book, "On Being Certain: Believing you
> Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert Burton.

> http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209

> He presents some very engaging and profound philosophical discussions
> about selective perception, the known mechanics of  brain function and
> probable role of evolution that give insights into things like this little
> game....when you consciously and diligently look for the man, you don't
> see him, but when you turn that processing off and let what some people
> refer to as intuition take over, he pops right out at you.

Thanks for this link. Ordered for my Kindle. Looks fascinating!

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
Speak the affirmative; emphasize your choice
by utterly ignoring all that you reject. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Larry Constantine]

Tim wrote:

 

>However, rather than rely on the pop-culture meaning of right/left brain
being thinking/feeling, I'd prefer to rely on the Thinking/Feeling spectrum
of the Myers Briggs survey - it's actually based on some half-decent
research (allbeit 50 odd years old now).<

I don't mean to be the perpetual rain maker, but, this is just another
flavor of pop-culture psychobabble. The Myers-Briggs and its related Kiersey
Temperament Sorter are based on Jungian psychoanalytic theory, which, along
with Freudian psychoanalytic theory, is taken less and less seriously these
days. Most of the early personality theories, even the ones for which
reasonably reliable instruments were developed, have largely been supplanted
by evidenced-based personality models, particularly the now generally
accepted five-factor model.

 

Frankly, the MB and KTS are fun at a cocktail-party level ("I'll tell you my
type if you'll tell me yours" "Well, what can you expect from an ISTJ") and
remain immensely popular in management circles (in part because there are
free versions of the KTS and no training, licensing, or fees are required to
use them, unlike the more industrial strength instruments like the MMPI) and
no doubt also owing in part to their somewhat simplistic categorization of
people into "types". In any case, they are not to be taken too seriously,
certainly not compared to the more recent findings in neuroscience and
cognitive science-even in their popularized packages.

 

Only Introversion-extraversion from the MB remains as a generally accepted
valid dimension of personality trait. As I've said before in this and other
forums, a psychometrically weak test with little or no independent validity
and based on unscientific theory is hardly a good grounding for significant
insight into ourselves and each other. Among colleagues who work in this
field, MB and KTS "types" are regarded as little better than astrology,
garnering comments resembling the oft-quoted Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy-"Mostly harmless." (Although there is debate about that.)

 

Amidst all that rhetorical rain, I confess I have learned things from using
the KTS, but I suspect this has more to do with the process and context
within which it was used than from the validity of the typology or the
measurement instrument. I have seen completely discredited "tests," such as
the Luscher Color Test, yield interesting and useful results in the hands of
skilled therapists.

 

But, we are getting pretty far afield from agility or usability.

 

--Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow

  Director, Lab:USE Laboratory for Usage-centered Software Engineering
(www.labuse.org)

  Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering

  University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal

 

[Ron Jeffries]

Hello, Larry.  On Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 7:19:03 AM, you
wrote:

> I don't mean to be the perpetual rain maker, but, this is just another
> flavor of pop-culture psychobabble. The Myers-Briggs and its related Kiersey
> Temperament Sorter are based on Jungian psychoanalytic theory, which, along
> with Freudian psychoanalytic theory, is taken less and less seriously these
> days. Most of the early personality theories, even the ones for which
> reasonably reliable instruments were developed, have largely been supplanted
> by evidenced-based personality models, particularly the now generally
> accepted five-factor model.

It's interesting, though, how much MB /does/ manage to say about
people's preferencee.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.  -- Geoffrey Chaucer

[Larry Constantine]

Ron said:

 

> It's interesting, though, how much MB /does/ manage to say about
people's preferencee.<



It SEEMS to manage to say-meaning,  people tend to feel/think it describes
them and others. It's the apparent attribution phenomenon. Research shows
that even completely phony tests with randomly assigned descriptions are
seen as subjectively valid. Unfortunately, the real objective validity of MB
is just not there.

 

Sorry, more rain in the forecast. :-)

 

--Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow

 

[Ron Jeffries]

Hello, Larry.  On Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 10:24:03 AM, you
wrote:

> It SEEMS to manage to say-meaning,  people tend to feel/think it describes
> them and others. It's the apparent attribution phenomenon. Research shows
> that even completely phony tests with randomly assigned descriptions are
> seen as subjectively valid. Unfortunately, the real objective validity of MB
> is just not there.

I'm not sure what "objective validity" would be. Not sure there is
one. However, I have seen people well versed in M-B perform
substantially better than chance at tasks like separating the NTs
from the NFs. I think it is pretty obvious, observing me, that I'll
score T and not F, for example.

I can imagine that people would "see" whatever in a person with a
randomly assigned description. But are you suggesting that for
people who have actually answered the questions to the best of their
ability, that their real life responses are essentially random with
respect to their description? I'd have guessed otherwise.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
The greatest mistake we make is living in constant fear that we will make one.
  --  John Maxwell

[Jon Kern]

Interesting Larry...

I have been subjected to numerous of these...
MB (ENTP)
MB-offshoot that I took with a therapist friend
KT
and a few others...

Oft-times, my own results are a teeter-tottering between two poles. In
one test, the instructor said most people align either in a vertical
column or along the horizontal row -- I was on the diagonal <g>. In
another, I was a strong Quick-Start, yet would take deep dives in being
Data Driven.

I just figured it was because I was weird... but maybe it was more due
to the inability of the systems to fully describe my "type?"

jon
blog: http://technicaldebt.wetpaint.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/JonKernPA



Larry Constantine said the following on 5/13/09 7:19 AM:

>
>
> Tim wrote:
>
> >However, rather than rely on the pop-culture meaning of right/left
> brain being thinking/feeling, I'd prefer to rely on the
> Thinking/Feeling spectrum of the Myers Briggs survey - it's actually
> based on some half-decent research (allbeit 50 odd years old now).<
>
> I don’t mean to be the perpetual rain maker, but, this is just another
> flavor of pop-culture psychobabble. The Myers-Briggs and its related
> Kiersey Temperament Sorter are based on Jungian psychoanalytic theory,
> which, along with Freudian psychoanalytic theory, is taken less and
> less seriously these days. Most of the early personality theories,
> even the ones for which reasonably reliable instruments were
> developed, have largely been supplanted by evidenced-based personality
> models, particularly the now generally accepted five-factor model.
>
> Frankly, the MB and KTS are fun at a cocktail-party level (“I’ll tell
> you my type if you’ll tell me yours” “Well, what can you expect from
> an ISTJ”) and remain immensely popular in management circles (in part
> because there are free versions of the KTS and no training, licensing,
> or fees are required to use them, unlike the more industrial strength
> instruments like the MMPI) and no doubt also owing in part to their
> somewhat simplistic categorization of people into “types”. In any
> case, they are not to be taken too seriously, certainly not compared
> to the more recent findings in neuroscience and cognitive science—even
> in their popularized packages.
>
> Only Introversion-extraversion from the MB remains as a generally
> accepted valid dimension of personality trait. As I’ve said before in
> this and other forums, a psychometrically weak test with little or no
> independent validity and based on unscientific theory is hardly a good
> grounding for significant insight into ourselves and each other. Among
> colleagues who work in this field, MB and KTS “types” are regarded as
> little better than astrology, garnering comments resembling the
> oft-quoted /Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy/—“Mostly harmless.”
> (Although there is debate about that.)
>
> Amidst all that rhetorical rain, I confess I have learned things from
> using the KTS, but I suspect this has more to do with the process and
> context within which it was used than from the validity of the
> typology or the measurement instrument. I have seen completely
> discredited “tests,” such as the Luscher Color Test, yield interesting
> and useful results in the hands of skilled therapists.
>
> But, we are getting pretty far afield from agility or usability…
>
> --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
>
> Director, Lab:USE Laboratory for Usage-centered Software Engineering
> (www.labuse.org)
>
> Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
>
> University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
>
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:agile-usability-digest@...
    mailto:agile-usability-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    agile-usability-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Tim Wright-3]

Alternatively, MB only measures 4 aspects of personality - and there are
lots of others (boiling humans sown to four opposing poles does seem
strange).

From a research perspective (I used to work for a psychometrics firm that
has been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology), one of the key
problems with MB is that it is a forced-choice type result - people have to
choose between two results (E or I, etc). There are several problems with
this:

1. people might prefer something else
2. it measures preference rather than strength

Despite this, I had the understanding that MB was based on decent (well,
decent in those decades ago) research. Larry - do you have references about
the problems with it?

This is also far off topic for this group - who wants to take the discussion
off-line? Flick me an email and we can continue (I find personality and
behavioral testing fascinating!)

Tim

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Jon Kern <jonkern@...> wrote:

> Interesting Larry...
>
> I have been subjected to numerous of these...
> MB (ENTP)
> MB-offshoot that I took with a therapist friend
> KT
> and a few others...
>
> Oft-times, my own results are a teeter-tottering between two poles. In
> one test, the instructor said most people align either in a vertical
> column or along the horizontal row -- I was on the diagonal <g>. In
> another, I was a strong Quick-Start, yet would take deep dives in being
> Data Driven.
>
> I just figured it was because I was weird... but maybe it was more due
> to the inability of the systems to fully describe my "type?"
>
> jon
> blog: http://technicaldebt.wetpaint.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/JonKernPA
>
>
>
> Larry Constantine said the following on 5/13/09 7:19 AM:
> >
> >
> > Tim wrote:
> >
> > >However, rather than rely on the pop-culture meaning of right/left
> > brain being thinking/feeling, I'd prefer to rely on the
> > Thinking/Feeling spectrum of the Myers Briggs survey - it's actually
> > based on some half-decent research (allbeit 50 odd years old now).<
> >
> > I don’t mean to be the perpetual rain maker, but, this is just another
> > flavor of pop-culture psychobabble. The Myers-Briggs and its related
> > Kiersey Temperament Sorter are based on Jungian psychoanalytic theory,
> > which, along with Freudian psychoanalytic theory, is taken less and
> > less seriously these days. Most of the early personality theories,
> > even the ones for which reasonably reliable instruments were
> > developed, have largely been supplanted by evidenced-based personality
> > models, particularly the now generally accepted five-factor model.
> >
> > Frankly, the MB and KTS are fun at a cocktail-party level (“I’ll tell
> > you my type if you’ll tell me yours” “Well, what can you expect from
> > an ISTJ”) and remain immensely popular in management circles (in part
> > because there are free versions of the KTS and no training, licensing,
> > or fees are required to use them, unlike the more industrial strength
> > instruments like the MMPI) and no doubt also owing in part to their
> > somewhat simplistic categorization of people into “types”. In any
> > case, they are not to be taken too seriously, certainly not compared
> > to the more recent findings in neuroscience and cognitive science—even
> > in their popularized packages.
> >
> > Only Introversion-extraversion from the MB remains as a generally
> > accepted valid dimension of personality trait. As I’ve said before in
> > this and other forums, a psychometrically weak test with little or no
> > independent validity and based on unscientific theory is hardly a good
> > grounding for significant insight into ourselves and each other. Among
> > colleagues who work in this field, MB and KTS “types” are regarded as
> > little better than astrology, garnering comments resembling the
> > oft-quoted /Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy/—“Mostly harmless.”
> > (Although there is debate about that.)
> >
> > Amidst all that rhetorical rain, I confess I have learned things from
> > using the KTS, but I suspect this has more to do with the process and
> > context within which it was used than from the validity of the
> > typology or the measurement instrument. I have seen completely
> > discredited “tests,” such as the Luscher Color Test, yield interesting
> > and useful results in the hands of skilled therapists.
> >
> > But, we are getting pretty far afield from agility or usability…
> >
> > --Larry Constantine, IDSA, ACM Fellow
> >
> > Director, Lab:USE Laboratory for Usage-centered Software Engineering
> > (www.labuse.org)
> >
> > Professor, Department of Mathematics & Engineering
> >
> > University of Madeira | Funchal, Portugal
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>