Stewart,
I'm in broad agreement. I am reminded of programmers trying to interpret legal
rules, and tying themselves in knots where someone with legal training
interprets for intent and purpose. (formatting of copyright statements in code
comes to mnd)
however, on Myers-Brigg, psychologists I know don't place much stock in in it.
seems to be sub-Freudian in reputation. I've found the test outcomes
repeatable for a person - but do they really have meaning?
And which MB type is most concerned with dignity, and likely to demand to be
treated with respect at all time? not a usual IETF trait, I'd hazard. ad
hominem is in the eye of the beholder.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
[stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: 08 March 2014 09:50
To: IETF Discussion
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Social Science and the IETF
I am concerned that in the recent IETF discussion of interpersonal
dynamics, insufficient consideration has been given to the innate
personal characteristics of individuals that participate in the
IETF process.
Using the Myers-Briggs characterization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
members of the 16 types can have difficulty understanding
arguments presented by another type. The nature of MBI-type
induced misunderstanding has been subjected considerable
research by the social scientists and is well documented. There
is a danger that the normal deduction of one MBI-type will not
be followed by another, and in the absence of an understanding
of that thought process, it might be assumed that an ad hominem
has been presented in place of an argument.
Whilst, of course, people have a right to be treated with respect
at all times, the IETF needs to be careful that consideration is given
to the personality types of those that take part and that it does not
institutionally prevent any MBI-type legitimately contributing to
discussion.
In the recent discussions that have taken place in the IETF on matters
related to social interaction, I have developed concerns that the
IETF is at risk of taking decisions outside its core competence.
In matters of organizational design and the creation of rules
that relate to interpersonal interaction, the IETF should, in my
view, be seeking wider professional input from those qualified
in the social and organizational sciences.
Stewart