L.O.G. 230 The Problem With Personality Tests

Okay, well, good morning, Greg. We're fired away. We're recording here very early morning. I'm already in my second cup of coffee, and it's only 5:00 a.m. my time. We're finally coming in for a landing on the month of October, which has been insane, so that's a good thing. But we'll see how we'll see how this conversation goes today. Both of us have come up with a new term, and it's "we'll sleep when we're in prison," because we've been doing travel back-to-back-to-back in so many different locations of this wonderful country that we have no idea what our rental car looks like when we got home. I mean, I know personally, I haven't slept since Sunday.

I like when I walk out of the hotel and you're standing at the wrong rental car. And then I walk over and I hit the button. I'm like, "Greg, it's over here!" And I'm standing at the other wrong rental car. "Wait a minute! Where are we?"

But we knew it was Greg, yeah. So, but today, we want to talk about something we get questions about a lot, we've discussed on other episodes before, and that has to do with personality tests, trait theory in general, because we don't get into that. We had one person on the show a while back, remember Alana? She came on to talk about very specific stuff where she was helping women who were in sort of abusive-type relationships get out, get divorced, and how to deal with people. I kind of got where she was getting at, which was like, "Okay, if this person exhibits these traits, here are methods to communicate with them more effectively or set boundaries better." So, I was like, "Okay, I like that because it's a practical approach."

But in general with trait theory, anyone who's an expert in this and studies trait theory (which there's the Five-Factor model, which has the most data behind it), anyone who really does that stuff will tell you that it's not a good predictor of behavior at all. It's just a way to articulate a set of experiences and feelings and emotions and behavior sometimes. Right? That's what psychology is: affect, cognition, and behavior – what you're thinking, what you're feeling, what you're doing. But people get kind of obsessed with this stuff because there's all this psychopathy and sociopathy that people talk about. What's even worse is a lot of personality tests have entered the workforce en masse. I mean, this is something that just everyone does now.

I know you had sent me an article, and there's just a great quote from it. This guy was writing about personality tests specifically in the workplace, and his name is Professor Kevin Murphy of the University of Limerick. He said, "Personality tests are simple to use, provide definitive answers, and are largely worthless for making important decisions." I could not support that comment any more. And he went on record saying it as a tenured professor, which is wonderful. I love that.

I kind of just want to preface a few things we'll talk about, but then I'll throw to you, because we'll talk about this in general about personality tests, kind of what our opinion is. You know, I have similar ones. You talk a little bit about Lord of the Flies, talk a little bit about measurement assessment, and that in general, how a measurement tool is only as good as the person using it. Not everything that we measure matters. Not everything that matters is what we measure. And a few different other things. But I'll throw to you to get started, Greg, because I know you have some strong opinions on it as well, mostly on kind of the lack of utility of any of this stuff. But I'll let you start.

So, I'll just fire a couple of shots across the bow that can kind of give us a fundamental underpinning to the longer argument and to Murphy's incredible quote. I would add, a personality test can only tell you what you tell it. And therefore, your answers to questions on humility and honesty and agreeableness, right? Seriously, you're answering your question based on your assessment of you.

Humans are complex psychological entities and they have multiple dimensions. And just the concept of these tests is dumbing that down to traits for comparison from one human to the same human in the same situation. So, you talk about a Maslow on steroids, you talk about looking down and in and never comparing it against up and out in the rest of society. And what I mean by that is that the true definition of personality – the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character. Personality is your collection of interrelated behavioral, cognitive, and emotional patterns, and biological and environmental factors influence it. And we also know that those interrelated patterns are relatively stable over time, over longer periods of time, but they do change over your lifetime. Why? Because you influence or are influenced by other things. So, Brian, personality can be simply a projection of you that you provide to the outside world, but it by no means is an accurate portrayal of you.

No, and because it's just like anything, it's very context-dependent. And you portray a different person based on your environment, based on the situation.

That's what we measure. That's the beauty of it. We measure your reaction to external stimuli in a very specific, laser-focused way. And so, therefore, we can predict.

Well, before we get to any of that, I'll just say, very simply, I act and behave and talk very differently when I'm hanging out with my brother than I do with my mom. You know what I mean?

Exactly. The beginning of the day, the workday, end of day, the event, on vacation.

And so, when it comes to this way, people a lot of times are just trying to be introspective and want some meaning or understanding of who they are, what they are. And that's great in terms of finding out what your likes and dislikes are and how you learn or how things affect you. That's cool. But to the first point of what you said, it's like going to a gym or a trainer and being like, "Yeah, this is how much I weigh, and this is how much I can lift." They're like, "Yeah, no, get step the [expletive] on the scale, go load the bar up!" No, you don't get to say, "Oh yeah, I think I can bench this much." No, you have to show what you can do.

And so, there are a couple of reasons for that. So, if I'm assessing myself, one, there are going to be things that I think I'm better at than I really am. But the opposite of that is true too, meaning there are things that people will be hard on themselves about or overly critical, even though it might not necessarily be true. So, you're not getting a true reading of yourself. And these tests in general are so unreliable. If I take one when I'm feeling great, having a great day, well-rested, I'll land in some category. And then two days later, I haven't slept much, I'm hungover, I'm whatever, you're going to land in a completely different category. That's a completely unreliable assessment. And with any assessment tool, I don't care what it is, it's only as good as the person who's using it. Right? So, if I can't hold a tape measure straight, I'm not getting an accurate reading, I'm not getting an accurate measurement of the distance. But that doesn't mean that the tape measure is wrong, it means I'm using it incorrectly.

But I think to caveat that specific point, Brian, that's such a great analogy. How much will go wrong with your home remodeling project? That wall's out of square. Then you're going to have to pay more. And then it's not going to drain properly, and the water damage in two years is going to be extensive. So, the idea of relying heavily on these is based on a faulty set of paradigms to create a predictive analysis. And what I mean by that is, we do prognostics and diagnostics. We take a look at the event, the vehicle, the person, then we place them against the background, which is the context and relevance, and we place that against the baseline, and then we make a determination on what most likely or most dangerous course of action would be. Then we watch for a little bit with an explanatory storyline in mind, based on those hypotheses, and see whether the hypothesis comes true or not.

What I mean is that those observed characteristics are very important. So then somebody goes, "Well, why did you just say they're not on personality?" Because personality is a name that we gave, like you know this with Max, you call it his temperament. What's Max's temperament like? In the morning, he's full of energy, he's got a great emotional response to everything that you do. So, that plus whatever he learns from you, and then from his hamper and from his doll and everything else, are going to create his personality, right? But that personality is going to change when Mom's home. That person literally, you see the difference between how he interacts with the three of us. So, don't tell me that a Myers-Briggs or some other test is going to take that and inform us on how I'm going to do in the future.

And I have a theory on this, Brian. I've always had the same theory: that we named it "personality testing" because we want people to sit in school with their shoulders back, straight up. We want the people that come to work to act in a specific way in a business setting. And therefore, we say we value these nine traits. It's the Big Five now, but you get what I mean. We value these nine traits, and we're going to test you for them. Hey, when Shelly did her first test, I think it was ninth grade, no, it must have been sixth grade, it said, "You'll be a forest ranger or work in the food service industry or something." What are you going to live that now? Are you going to—

Well, that's the thing. And you're going backwards. It's like, I can't say those things because they're trying to put someone in a box, and then people will put themselves in a box and be like, "Okay, I'm an INFJ," I don't know what any of them are, I don't care, but "I'm this," and that's who they think they are. And you're like, that's not, that's so overly simplistic. And what value does it have for you? Because some of these, and that's why I kind of brought up the Big Five, is a difference, because what they do on that, there's been so many research and studies into it that they have a comparative baseline for society in general. So, for differences between age groups or men and women or something like that, that's a comparison. It doesn't mean it's more accurate, right? Because those numbers are meaningful, right?

Those, like, if you say, "Well, I'll give you an example. A couple of them say, if you're conscientious, then based on your other pursuits, then you're probably going to be more proficient at your job." What kind of horseshit is that? If I'm conscientious at chasing skirt, for example, then does that mean that I'm going to be more punctual coming to work? Then they say, "Creative people are more open to new experience." Okay, I got that. But the caveat to that is, they're also less conventional and much more self-confident. So, if you're a boss and you're reading that result, you want a creative person? No, you want a "toe the line," "follow the leader" person, right? And then folks with higher anxiety levels or depressed or have, let's say, substance abuse disorders, they're high on neuroticism and lower on conscientiousness. So, are you going to be less punctual because of those things, and am I going to decline? You get where I'm going? What are we using it for?

That's the whole point, is what are you using it for? So, there are certain advantages to some of this stuff if, let's say, I'm going to see a therapist or some personal development, and they can assess me in different contextual situations as well. A lot of different, like, situational judgment tests or something like that, or going through something and taking a bunch. And then them as a professional go, "Alright, here's kind of how you fall in. Oh, you want to work on some things? You keep getting passed over for promotion. You have a hard time because you're too agreeable or something. Well, this is why." You know what I mean? So, now you can—

That's profound, because now you can use that information.

Exactly. But for the hiring stuff, it's that that's the worst thing I've ever heard. And HR is not a professional that should be doing that.

Look, if a mental health professional comes to you or a psychologist, Brian, and they do a series of tests, a psychiatrist even, and that's stretching it, and they say, "Okay, you've come up with the dark triad," right? So, you're a narcissist, a Machiavellian, and you have a psychopathy trait, right? So now if you have all three of those during the testing, they can predict likely aggression and delinquency and interpersonal and sex differences and antisocial differences that a person next to you won't have. But Brian, that's on how long of research that goes back how long? When people were testing it, and still even now, we're poking holes in some of that and saying, "Well, maybe not as strong a predictor," whatever. So if you're telling me that we can go back to every person that I venerate, before Freud all the way back to the eons, and we look at that, and then you're going to say, "Yeah, but we've come up with a foolproof way of filling in these little black dots and when they come back out of the computer, we can tell you who you are." Brian, it's harder than that, it really is. And I know I don't want to oversimplify it, but every expert says that you should be skeptical and that these aren't worth the money. And I'm chiming in on the experts, but I'm also a scientist. So, if there comes a time when I see deliberate evidence that is conclusive that says that I can use it for prediction qualities, Brian, I would love to use it. But I think it's being used wrong. And I think that fundamental attribution error and our biases are forcing those results to be true.

Yeah, we're saying, "Hey, good hire on Tim." Right? He filled in all those blanks, didn't he?

Right.

And these are all, one, they're only descriptive in nature, and they're not that reliable. So, what value does it have then? That's my thing. Why would you put so much value on an oversimplified assessment that—

But you know why? Because I can point to something and say, "This is why," versus, "Well, I got a good feeling for the guy." Anytime I can point to something, a certificate, a vehicle, a steel door at the school, "Look at that thing that I brought that makes this somehow better than something else." And the idea is, a door is only as good as keeping it locked. And what have we seen human nature as, Brian? Prop that goddamn door open. So, you're telling me that the results of this test may differentiate me from somebody else, and that differentiation may exclude me from getting hired now, when I need a job more than ever. And I sit down to this long test, and I'm going through every question that seemingly makes no sense to me, but it's going to make sense to somebody else, and I'm trying to give it my best foot forward. See, the difference between a blood test is, no matter how hard I study, the results are going to be the same. Do you get it? So, that's a true diagnostic. My piss test, unless I come to subterfuge, it's going to really tell what it's going to tell.

And that's not good for our company. But very, very, very strict, no drug testing policy at our organization, so we want to medicate, self-medicate early and often to make sure that we're putting our best foot forward.

Yeah, and we want you to deal with your problems because I don't want to deal with them.

No, we can't. But this kind of gets into a lot of different sort of diagnostic tools like that, or where someone comes up with a way to explain something because they have some data that may correlate. And then part of it, it takes off for a while, and then people go, "Oh wait, this is kind of not really." I mean, that's like your buddy Maslow that you love bashing. That was all popular, and—

You can bash his whole body of work. Just no.

No, his hierarchy of needs, which isn't even taught at a lot of places anymore.

Brian, keep your train of thought, because I just want to liken it to this goddamn "Hey, date better by doing our app. You got it made." Dating app.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Those are all junk, and they're just completely unreliable. And everyone's throwing together saying, "Well, look, what about this? What about that?" It's like, "No, you're using this as justification to prove what you think it was when it may have had absolutely nothing to do with that." But where I was going with this too, is we'd like to categorize those into different areas. And we have this kind of odd view of psychology sometimes because it's a nebulous, complex science, and it's new. Psychology hasn't been around as long as math and physics. And it's changing, right? So, there's, and just now as we have access to data and can really data-mine that stuff with AI and machine learning stuff, we're actually figuring out, "Oh wow, some of this stuff really doesn't matter at all, does it?" But this is one of those things, and the reason why I brought up Lord of the Flies at the beginning, is because it's a great book, it's a great story. Everyone's read it when they're a kid in school. But in those, you have these sort of different characters, right? These different personalities that were molded to tell the story. And everyone uses this reference, which is hilarious, because it's The Lord of the Flies reference. "Oh, it turns into Lord of the Flies down there." Well, that's actually not what really happens in real life at all. Like, we don't turn into the savage beast running around the island. Because it was so funny, after that book was published, I think it was just a few years after, there were a bunch of British kids, there were like eight or ten of them, got shipwrecked on an island somewhere. And guess what? They survived for, I think, six months or something.

No, that's what William Golding based his book on. The idea is that it actually occurred. The timeline doesn't matter, but the idea is that the book was written to create the dramatic effects of society's downfall. Piggy with the conch shell make the decision, and that does not happen. And it's been proven not to happen.

No, I know. And that's why I bring that up, that story up, because you have a lot of this in there. And there are literally a lot of characters in stories used to sort of different personality traits from stuff like this to talk about it. And then these stories are also then used, not as justification, but to explain some of the personality traits. And it's junk, meaning it's not real. It's not, humans are, it doesn't show the complexity of someone's personality and what that really means. Humans are a little bit more complex than that. And anytime you try to put it in just a little square box like that, it's just not going to make sense all the time.

And you're spot on, Brian. Broken humans act broken. Hurt humans hurt. Why can we make those predictions, and why are those predictions followed up? And you know what predictions we don't make? Is that kid's going to be a school shooter based on some test that we give in third grade. So, the idea is that we don't create—we're not alchemy. We're not sitting there saying that if you put certain things together and say Wingardium Leviosa, other things will happen. What we're doing is we're saying certain indicators, like your friend that wrote an incredible review, the gentleman from Flint that works in this all the time, what a great review. He mentions perception all over and how we deal in perception. But we also deal in emotion. Why do we deal in emotion? Because emotion is hardwired. You're emotionally who you are. And so, your method of communication, your means of what would wordless language through chemistry and mind, it's basically a definition of emotion, right? Because it's coming out of all your pores to another human. Why? Because that's my most primitive way of communicating to you that I'm sad or I need help or something is wrong in my environment. And then fear is an emotion that does what? It makes us recoil so that snake doesn't snap at us and bite us. So, we add to that the perceptions of human behavior and it's situational. So, we can't predict what you're going to do tomorrow afternoon at two, unless we've clocked you every afternoon at two and you go to Wawa for a coffee and a crawler. Then we can make a reasonable assumption that that's what you're going to do.

So, HR is not using these tools for that. HR is using this as a discriminatory—and I mean that in its clinical definition—way of filling you into a slot that's available in a job. And so, the proof isn't in the pudding. The proof is that nobody came in and shot up the job, and they go, "So it worked!" Well, wait a minute. Are we misattributing the results?

I'm not saying that. Well, it goes into this, like you brought up the school shooter example. And you could say, "Well, every school shooter has fallen into these categories or had these similar traits or these similar things." Okay, but maybe, let's say that's something that occurs where they found three distinct traits or something in each and every one. That doesn't mean you can go test for those traits and just because someone has those three traits means they're any more likely to be a school shooter than anyone else. You can't make that, you can't go back and do that. That's not how that worked. One, that's just a misunderstanding of how data collection and statistics and probability work. But it's also just a misattribution of the meaning of what this is. It's a descriptive analytic. It's a descriptive way to describe something about you when you took the test, when you were evaluated.

So, they still haven't caught this shooter in Maine yet as we're talking about the recording, and that'll change, subject to change. The idea is, they're already hypothesizing. First of all, they're already finding stress fractures. They're saying these things that he said and these things that he did, people were talking about it long before it occurred. Now what they're going to say is, "Well, there's a significance between this and that, and these connections occurred." Brian, that's dangerous. When we say that, sometimes people have just had enough. Sometimes the bowling alley is close enough to the liquor store where I had the issue that that's the next place that I walk. So, surmising and hypothesizing all about this is not helping us catch him.

No, it's not reducing anxiety.

And analysis. It's not helping us understand the situation. That's the problem with it.

Exactly. It really does, because what do we always talk about when we're talking about noise, and we're talking about the pure signal, Brian? The pure signal that's coming through is muddied because we're going to spend all of these days on conjecture and not spend a minute on the facts that we can prove. That way back here, we had a broken human, and the failure to deal with a broken human is more likely to predict a bad outcome than it is just allowing society to say, "Hey, that person," like, for example, the "lone wolf" distinction. Now, "lone wolf" distinction comes from the loner, and "this person's a loner." No, they're not a loner. They had to do a whole bunch of things out in society to prepare for the thing that they're doing, and those things were seen. It's just we don't know what those things are very accurately, and we don't use the right predictive analysis tools. You can't name a single loner because they're off by themselves, not acting with people. I mean, a true loner is someone who just wants to live away from people. All these people they call them "the loners," like, "No, they were screaming out to the world." That's what Ted wrote a freaking manifesto and then started mailing bombs. That means he's not a loner, right?

He, but Brian, he had to pedal his bike from his shitty shack all the way into town after he used an old typewriter and mailed that manifesto to somebody. So, that's remaining a loner? No. The one comment that I sent to you from the UC Davis from Samine Vazire, where he was sizing up all the different personality tests, and he zeroed in on Myers-Briggs. He was talking about the false impressions that are generated by the test, and he said it's "bogus stuff," and he summed it up as "shockingly bad." Now, look, the word "shockingly" should be the slap of reality. You need to reassess. And who sells these tests better than anybody? The people that develop them and administrate them. And so, they will show you, just like anybody else out there that's a scammer, they'll show you all these results. "Look at these results." And then the worst one is, "Look at who uses us." Just because the person uses you is an endorsement of the procedure. It's not an endorsement of the outcome. And I'm just real skeptical, Brian.

So, when you brought this up—and by the way, folks, if you know the process here—late last night, after I was well asleep, and late around here is 8:00 p.m. When the bear comes, we all huddle for safety. Brian said, "Hey, what about we talk about this tomorrow?" And we both got up at what, five, to record. So, there wasn't a lot of, there's zero research and planning going into it. But both of us came in with the idea that every time we've seen it used, it was more like astrology and pseudoscience than it was science. And so, we're not seeking out opinions that agree with our opinion because, you remember a couple years ago, we had, in non-attribution, we had a person that wanted to be on the team. And they said, "This is what I do," and all of it was these type of testing. Now, first of all, I love that person, and what a vivacious and smart and happy person. But the fundamental attributes of the logic were flawed. So, we can't do that. We can't throw darts at a map and say, "Brian threw the better darts, so today he's the scientist." There's no logic there. There's no long-term payback, and I think that's what we look for in math and science, isn't it? Your house-building analogy with the tape measure. Why use the tape measure? Because we have a long-term benefit from doing that, rather than a hip pocket, "Hey, I feel this way today."

And I think they paint people too big or broad of a brush. It's just, and I kind of, one thing I see is almost analogous to this, is like, we've talked about before, when people say they have different learning styles, or "I'm more of a visual," or "I'm more of the—" and you're like, "That's all junk." And people will say that that's based on "me, my research of me." Well, no, Greg, the thing is, they've taken people and they said, "Oh yeah, I found out I'm more of this type of," then they put them through different tests and found there's zero correlation to what they say and what actually is the outcome. But we have to do that again sometimes. It's like, "Well, let's try to understand or explain the learning process." And there's a lot of science behind that, how humans learn, meaning. But to try to categorize in these different ways, it's like, "No." There's a lot going on here, and it depends on what the subject is, and it depends on nine million other complex interactions. So, why boil it down and oversimplify it? Because it's not helping.

So, if we've known since the late '40s and early '50s that classrooms are designed poorly, and that we want to improve the learning environment by creating different places to sit and roundtables for interaction and places to get up and walk around as you're learning. So many things that are out there, they're out there, read, do your homework. Yet every single higher education institute or academic learning institute we go into has the same old lockstep seat forward, table at a 90. And now all those tables are wired so you can put your computer on it so you can look down and in and sit in your little space and just veg out. That's not learning, Brian. The longer we're facing down, the less we're going to learn.

And I looked up a couple of those sites back in the day when we had that person that was coming on because I was looking for the science. You know me, there are three things: there's science, there's conscience (which we call a conscience), and then there's non-science. Where do you fall in? In Greg's scale. And the idea is it says that the personality development from these tests will make you more disciplined, punctual, and an asset for your organization. What? How in God's name can you say that? The results of this test. Now, if you're taking a look at, again, fundamental attribution error, it can work. It can work because even the elixir sold by snake oil salesmen, when we're ramping it up, "Hey, I felt better after I did that."

That's a great point, because the placebo effect, in a sense, is so unbelievably powerful. It's actually the only reason why the supplement industry is as massive as it is. Because people, if you want to believe that this thing does this for you, it will give you a measurable result. And that's across the board. That's with prescription drugs, that's with every, every doctor will tell you that. So, even the pharmaceutical industry will endorse that. And that's why when they measure certain effects for, in that specific industry, for different drugs, it has to be like, "Okay, but yeah, we had the 20% increase in this." It's like, "Yeah, but so did the placebo. So, your thing did nothing," right? You have to count, you have to base it to that, not just to base it to zero.

Right.

And it's just a great analogy. The way to look at it is like, "Well, if I believe that this thing is going to give me the accurate measurement of this individual, then I'm going to justify it when I'm done because I paid for it, I used it, and I want it to work."

And now we have the groupthink of all the people that are using it. And look, every one of those, look, General Motors, and all these huge companies—I think of a Detroit reference, right? They use it. Why do they use it? Because it's simple, because they can point at it, and because nobody—personality is intangible, and every single human has a unique personality. So, the study of personality is incompatible with psychology because there aren't norms. And so then, when they come down with the 16 or 17 traits of Myers-Briggs and then the Big Five and all those other things, we're normalizing those. But everybody doesn't exactly fit because I'm a 135, you're a 247, and all those other things. So, what does that mean? That means that if you have to look at a sliding scale, and then you know that that scale can be tampered with. In other words, if I had a couple of beers before lunch, and the test was taken the next morning, or I didn't have a great meal, and I just want to get out of the room, Brian, that can't be science. And what I'm saying is, the method can be scientific. This is like, don't get me started, but this "evidence-based." We haven't actually, you and I haven't even really talked about that term and how people use that. But what the [expletive] does that mean? They're throwing it out for anything. So, "Hey, during our training, we follow the scientific method." More useless empty platitudes. And the idea is, you know what the difference is, and people listening now are going, "What are they talking on now?" Do you understand that they've spent tens of millions of dollars studying the words that came out of Brian and I's mouth and all the other experts that we work together on these programs? And they vetted every single thing. They went back and they assigned tests, and they did tests, and they did different situational analyses and subjective tests and determinative tests and everything else. They come up and they said, "Yeah, this stuff is right. This stuff is horseshit." So, why is the horseshit still out there?

Look, there's a company in Gunnison. I can't say that there is. There are people that still believe phrenology, reading the bumps on the human head, are predictive analysis. Right? Can I say that? I can say that without getting sued or run out of town. Folks, there are only 6,000 people in Gunnison, and they own pitchforks and torches. So, I've got to kind of play the role. I don't want them to get pissed at me. But psychology isn't the end-all-be-all, and neither is psychiatry. So, why do we latch on to those? Because they make us feel good. I go back to, God, I think it's Tommy Boy. Why do people want the, what do they call it, the on the box? You remember that story? So, folks, if you're listening, play Tommy Boy, that scene in your head, because I'm not going to stick my head up a butcher's ass. But the idea is, it makes us feel good. Look, every certificate you get that's not from a certificate of higher education where you had to pass final exams and go through rigorous testing, that's hanging on your wall is merely a certificate of attendance. And it made you feel good, and it made your agency feel good, and it makes HR feel good. That doesn't mean that you can demonstrate those skills for me right now. So, be careful, because if we put too much validity, Brian, in it, do you remember that at one time, leeches were the way to go? Do you get what I'm trying to say? Remember Theodoric of York? (The medieval barber who practices bloodletting). They still use leeches, but—

I bet they still do, but I get what you're saying.

Drunken heads were a talman. Come on. Ridiculous.

"Seems like you've got ghosts in your blood. Have you tried cocaine?" I mean, that was okay, that was medicine. That was medicine in Chicago last night.

That's true.

No, and the reason why we, one of the reasons too why I kind of bash these or don't put a lot of faith or value in them, it's another thing to look at where someone's trying to explain something that is complex in nature, and they're trying to simplify it. And when they do that, you end up oversimplifying it.

Absolutely agree.

And it's like when, let's say, when we use a photo, or let's say we use a photo because I use this stuff on social media now, and our Instagram account is kind of growing. So, you get all these clowns in there that are just completely missing the point. But then you also have amazing people who are just really getting it, and it's so awesome. But when we're explaining something that you see in a photo, maybe some environmental indicators or physical indicators or something that's incongruent, signals that anomalies that we want to talk about, our observation is basically, when we're doing that, it's like pressing, we're pressing pause on the situation. But you don't get to do that in real life, meaning we're saying at this moment in time, at this second, this is what this shows. Let me prove that to you. And you go, "Okay." But if the second you press play, that can change as new and incoming information comes in.

So, I kind of look at these in the same way. It created a snapshot for you when you took the exam. And which is very different than it's funny that all these businesses use this stuff. And I just heard another great, I've heard this quote before, but there was some other business guy talking about it, and one of the things he said about people is, "You hire slow and you fire fast." Meaning, the only way to know is sustained observation of whether or not someone's a good fit or what they're going to be like. You have to take your time getting to know them, whatever. And then the second you see something out of line, you've got to cut it right there. And it was kind of an interesting, simplified way to look at it. But I thought that kind of explained what is a better approach in terms of how you observe behavior, what you're willing to accept, what you're not willing to accept, and what really matters in a sense, versus just some score on a test that you might have not been prepared for or expecting or in a great mood for that affects how you're judged. I mean, that's such an arbitrary way to gauge a person's conduct, I think. And that's my—

No, and that's spot on. So, the other difference to the naysayers—and there are very few of you, and you're just snipers, you just like your opinion out there—the idea is that the difference between us and anybody else doing what we do is, we press pause, explain it, then go over and prove it. We follow up on absolutely everything we do. We don't just drive by and go, "Hey, that was interesting, and it probably means this." I give you a case in point. Brian and I had worked all day a specific day of this week doing our filming back in New York. And as we ended our filming day in New York, we were both exhausted and heading through the lobby of our hotel. And there were dozens of people in the lobby of the hotel at that time of night. And I see Michael Madsen. So, the idea was that I've been wrong before, so I tell Brian, "That's Michael Madsen." Brian goes, "I'm not sure." And so, what did we do? I confirmed my hypothesis. I wove through the crowd and I go over and I go, "Hey, I don't want to do you ugly." And he goes, "No, I know you, man." And we had a great talk with Michael. Super nice guy. What an incredible Mr. White from Reservoir Dogs (which featured "Stuck in the Middle With You"). His role in Species, just incredible that persona that he brings in. But the point was that we do that in real life too. So, when we go to work for a client, we say, "This means this," and then we go show them what it means. And then we do the interview, and we do the followup, and we prove it with artifacts and evidence to support it.

So, Instagram is kind of hard, and I just fathom—no, but I won't fathom to say it because I don't understand instantaneous social media. But I will understand this: many, many times in science, we'll use an exemplar, a series of events, or make a scenario to show certain things so your brain catches on. It's Where's Waldo? So much of the work that we did in Fort Benning and Fort Bragg and all the other bases, where I don't even know the names anymore, where we were a mile away, sitting for hours on a situation with role players that were in a complex village, Brian, we're doing that to train the brain. The longer you make sustained observation and test your hypothesis, the better you'll be. We didn't do that as busy work. And this feels like busy work. It feels like somebody else trying to categorize human beings and then based on a score of 535 or 672, you're going to be a lumberjack. And I think that's horseshit.

The other thing is, people change over time. So, do they re-administer these tests? Do they do them in six months or a year? The trying to categorize you into some type of job is not—I mean, again, it's trying to be some sort of prescriptive in nature, but it's not. It doesn't, you know, you could like you just said, people change, you change in the environment, you change. And just because you're not a typical person that's in that role—I mean, I think about how many different, some of the top-tier military units, it takes a lot to get in there. And of course, people are going to be generally more aggressive or Type A personality, like people like to use. But that's not always true. You get a very diverse group of people. What I mean by that, different personalities. Some are loud and outgoing, many are very quiet and reserved. And that changes, like you said, over time. A lot of people, when they were younger, were one way. When they get older, they're kind of a little bit different. And so, I use that as an example because the selection process is lengthy. It's long. It's under observation. It's under extreme circumstances. So, the point is to test you in these areas, not to say, not to get some measurement on you. Now, they do all of those things as well, right? They have to take personality tests and measure different things. But that's more so for data collection. The really only thing that matters is, did you, did you, did you, one, did you meet the standard? Did you make the team? Yes. And then two, and one of the biggest things is, in a lot of those places, if one person, one instructor, for one thing, whatever, for whatever reason, they don't even have to say, they're like, "No, I don't like them." Meaning, they have to also go, "Is this person a good team member for what we know and think?" But that's a nebulous kind of concept because that changes over time too. You can't put a descriptor on that necessarily.

Brian, if they take those analytics and they measure that data over time against that person's performance, then that person's performance within their team, then that person's performance in combat, that type of stuff, it will tend to show different things. Yes, what those different things are, I wouldn't know, and I'm not going to speculate at this time. But I will tell you this, that what that shows, if used properly, can help. Like, for example, if they found out that five of their candidates over time failed because of these certain things, maybe they can use that to tighten a loophole. And therefore, that would be a prescriptive, and it would be a diagnostic, and it would be something that I would endorse. This other way that we're doing it, like, Brian, just because you screamed obscenities at somebody when their feet were on the yellow boot prints and threw their gear all over the place and browbeat them and everything else, in no way made that person a better Marine or a worse Marine or anything else. It was a gating mechanism that's been around forever, and probably will be around for a good long time. But you show me the statistics other than people saying, "Yeah, that really was a determining factor." Remember Mr. Shoeshine that we saw the other day where his entire military experience was that 35 years after he was in the military, he still spit-shines the toes and heels of his boots. But, okay, are you proud of that? I mean, thanks for your service, but if that's all you got from that entire experience, you kind of missed a lot there. So, if that's one of many facets that you have and you're showing that your personal conviction is such that you can maintain it and hold it together, that's great, Brian. But that's not what we're doing.

Anytime, why do we call it "profiling"? Because we create a robust, fidelity-filled profile of a human. And that's different when we're taking a look at personality, because personality is sort of one-dimensional, or a very few dimensions, based on a casual greeting or the outward projection of that personality by that person. And again, anytime you ask somebody to talk about them, you're going to get their results, and that's not real science, man. It's like, why do we, and this is off topic but it's on topic, why do we tell people not to do our resume up front? Because all they do is a cold reading of our resume, they mispronounce everything, and it's meaningless.

And plus, you get put into a box. I mean, before you even start speaking. That was the same thing, like with some of those military teams and everything. I'd show up on day one for training and I'm wearing slacks, a button-down shirt, and a sport coat. Why? Because everyone else walked in to teach, that was a civilian contractor, wore 5.11s and a polo shirt. And they went, "Okay, I'm going to put you in this box." And it's like, so they had to go, "Wait a minute, what is it? This is different." So now you're actually paying attention to what I say and not reading into a background. That's why we don't do that stuff too. Because why would you? Plus, what does it matter if what someone's teaching you has value, and it works, and there's something behind it? Why do I care what you did years ago, Greg?

Look at the test that we did to prove how biases can misdirect you. Everybody wore a white T-shirt and blue jeans on the range and 80 role-players just performing their behavior, first at day, then at night for two different groups. And everybody came back and gave profiles based on what, Brian? Their clothing? Nope. Their color? Their skin? No, it all came down to their behavior in that environment compared to the other people in that environment based on that specific scenario. And that's scientific, buddy. That goes right to the bank. And I tell you folks, if you're following us on social media—and we hope you do, share it with other people—because there's somebody out there that's getting it wrong only because they've only been taught one way of doing things. And it's the cutting the meat off to put it in a pan and then throwing the meat to the dogs. And everybody goes, "Oh man, that's got to be some historical thing that the dog is our partner in crime and everything." And then the lady at the end of it says, "No, it's meat wouldn't fit in a pan. That's the only pan I got." So, I didn't want to waste the meat. Those type of things abound, Brian. And those urban legends have now stuck around so long that some people believe it's science. And when I read the stuff that's out there, most of it is that, "Hey, it's science-based," or "It's evidence-based." I kiss my fat ass. It hasn't been tested. It's not science.

"Evidence-based" is a hilarious one to me. That's like the, "Oh, it was a nonzero number." That's like that type of—

Oh my God, what a great comment! How do you answer Congress? "Well, it was a nonzero number." What about the use of the term "organic"? How many times do we use "organic"? Everything that's on the face of the earth is organic. From the earth, it's organic.

Slow your... understand like organic chemistry and inorganic. Is that what you mean? Like inorganic object.

No, I know exactly what you mean. But so sometimes we leverage words. "It's all natural." Oh my God. You and I both could give evidence on some unnatural things. What is "all natural"? The word salad. And that's what you get. You get into this. Plus, you're never going to know these things about a person. Like when I meet you, if it doesn't help me in some way go, "Well, I know if Greg is a reverted, whatever this that," like I can get, well, it's like if I could see that about you and then it gave me some insight on how to approach this, but this doesn't, it's all junk, meaning it's all just thrown together. You can't look at someone and determine some of this stuff. And then you can't ask them to determine what their own personality is because I'm going to tell you one, I'm going to tell you one. And cold readers can do it, and they're really good.

So, I went to a cold reading. I won't name the human. It was tickets for Shelly and I for Shelly's birthday, and we love poking holes. So, we go down and we're watching the entire production and we see everything. And there's a great movie out with Steve Martin, I can't think of the name of it, the soundtrack is amazing, where he's a small-town guy bouncing from town to town doing religious stuff with all these famous people. Debra Winger's in it, and the guy that says, "I have a certain set of skills," (Liam Neeson) is the sheriff, whatever that guy is. He's 90 years old, still flipping people's throats, stuff. And the, gosh, totally lost the place.

Yeah, I don't know where you're going. Cold read. So, are you going to tie that back in at some?

No. And thank you, everyone. So, we're at the cold read in New Mexico. And we're sitting in this vast auditorium. And I'm watching the people that the guy's doing. And I look, and this one woman is very demonstrative and very emotional and everything. And he goes up, and all of the things that she brought with her are the ark, Noah's Ark characters from the ark, things and twos and everything else. And I'm going, "What's the angle? What's the angle?" I couldn't get there fast enough. And he goes, "Oh, I'm going to talk to you about Noah's Ark. These are the people that passed over." And there was a whole bunch of them. I go, "Okay." Hence the ark.

Hence the ark.

I got the ark. What happened within the last couple years? And it was 9/11. And so, I got the 9/11. As soon as he got the 9/11, and he goes, "These people were all in the buildings when they hit 9/11, and everybody in that section went down." And each of them were carrying talismans. So, what he did is he did Myers-Briggs based on their method of dress and that they sat together and the type of things that they were saying while they were listening in on them, while the people were sitting down and whatever they may have written that they were going to come in to, "What reading do you have? What would you like to do?" And Brian, you know what it felt like? It was the real thing. Was it the real thing? No, it was a parlor trick. So, when you see a parlor trick, they're fun. I'll tell you, they're fun to watch and read, and every once in a while they're real accurate. But make sure that you know that the guy that made Nostradamus' quatrains, his first name was Mike, and it'll put everything in perspective for you.

Yeah, "Hey, what did Mike say?" "Yeah, Mike said a big flood's coming." Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, personality, it's not good. And then you just, it's an overgeneralization, just like some of those predictions that people make, especially those the cold readers who just slowly go in based on your reaction and how—

And plus, there are only so many, "Was it cancer or a bullet?" Am I lying? So, listen, next time you go to a doctor—right now you're calling [expletive]. So, first of all, blow me. Second of all, prove it. So, next time you go to the doctor, say, "I would like a doctor that bases everything on mere conjecture. So, I don't want them to use heart rate and the results of my blood test. I just want them to kind of look at me and kind of size things up, Brian, and then ask me a couple of questions, 'Are you feeling generally good?'" And then come out with the thing and charge me money for it. Come on.

Well, I think we insulted enough people this morning.

I feel angry somehow. Why am I so angry this morning?

I don't know. I don't have the energy in me to be angry this morning. Max does. Max is sapping the energy, baby. Then he just passes out and goes to sleep whenever the hell he wants. So, I'm a lot like Max. I'm angry sometimes, I'm happy sometimes, and I fall asleep a lot and [expletive] my pants. So, right now, Max and I are about on par with each other.

Yeah, well, I think that's kind of, we sort of, I don't even remember what the topic was today. I think we were talking about personality tests. Professional sports teams. I guess we kind of explained our opinion in some type of manner, explained some of the issues with them and just how I don't want to use a tool that's unreliable.

And because, Brian, if we're wrong, we'll fix our opinion. But based on all the evidence and the testimony, I'm not worried about being wrong.

Not being, not worried about being wrong on this one. We're not exactly making a bold statement here or prediction with what we're talking about here, right? We're not really out on the limb or out on thin ice.

Yeah, yeah.

All right, well, I think that's a good spot to kind of bring in for a landing on. We do appreciate everyone listening and tuning in. And please share it with your friends. There's more. We have a Patreon side for those listeners, you can always check that out. We got the book. Yeah, the textbook is out now. We should have talked about that earlier in the episode when people were still listening, but only two of us now. But no, we have the textbook out. All links for that and episode details and all that stuff. If you follow along at the Arcadia Cogner website, you get a little discount code, so I would recommend that because it's not cheap.

Get them while they're hot, I say.

They're going fast, actually. But they're not cheap. No, they're not cheap. But you're not, you're not paying for some horrible "War Story" test.

It's just going to be a packet of personality tests that show up in the mail, and you fill them out and send them back to us with your check. There we go. So, we do—I'm feeling an Uncle coming through. Uncle Greg.

Oh God, you always do. So, thank you, everyone, for tuning in. We do appreciate it. And don't forget that training changes behavior.