Introversion and Extroversion

[Wind Swept]

Wow. This explains so much.

You need to change your avatar. I keep thinking you're Rei. [/derailment]

[VelvetElvis]

So I talk a lot. In front of people.

[Eaquae Legit]

And also, one of the best articles I've ever seen on introversion: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch

[Wind Swept]

[Virlomi]

Wow. This explains so much.

You need to change your avatar. I keep thinking you're Rei. [/derailment]

Oh for pete's sake, it's Eloise! It looks nothing like Rei's!

[/sidetrack]

[fawkes]

Huh. I guess that sounds about right. I'm very contradictory, though...

[Luet]

I was actually disappointed that my mathematical was as far down as it was. I love math! But with two musicians for parents, I'm not surprised about that one.

[starlooker]

*bump*

I guess this is off the topic of Introversion/Extraversion. But I just got around to taking the multiple intelligence test and feel a need to rant. Which everyone is welcome to ignore, as it's just me being an assessment-critique junkie with a need to spout off on two major soapboxes (multiple intelligences AND test construction).

Wow, that was silly. Even for a test on "multiple intelligences." That was a test on interests. (Sort of.) Which is far different than a test of aptitude or ability or, even, achievement. It may correlate, but it is not the same thing. This is something that people in the fields of career assessment, IQ assessment, aptitude and achievement testing have known for decades.

Nom, don't worry. You probably are mathematically quite intelligent. That was purest baloney.

I am really not a fan of the whole "multiple intelligence" theory, anyways. For multiple reasons, based in 1) intelligence theory and definition, and 2) actual numerical research conducted on M.I. vs. "g." This is not to say that I don't believe people can't be gifted in different arenas, and that some of these arenas aren't as important/more important than traditional conceptualizations of intelligence.

But leaving that rant aside and just looking at the issue of test construction and the validity of the construct, this is so problematical. Half of those "intelligences" are completely confounded with other things. For example, apparently you can only be interpersonally intelligent if you're an extrovert. The interpersonal intelligence items include things like, "I like crowds." Good LANDs. That shows nothing about ability to read a situation, ability to persuade others or influence them or understand people's motivations, all of which seem more related to this idea of "social intelligence" to me. I could go on.

If I DID want to make a test of multiple intelligences, if it were something I believed in, this is not the test I'd make. By a long shot.

(And, yes, I know, I know, it's not even meant to be taken that seriously. I can't help it. It's like Ali seeing someone posting something false about developmentally disabled folks, or Kelly seeing someone posting about how Catcher in the Rye is horrible because the main character is just as phony as everyone else. I just can't let it go.)

[/rant]

[Young Val]

I adore you, Kirsten.

[Eaquae Legit]

Me too.

[starlooker]

Thanks, ya'll. The feeling is very definitely mutual.