The Very Incomplete Science of Cognitve Behaviourial Measuring Tools

As a rule I am not a big believer in the use of cognitive instruments to determine people's personal styles or preferences. There is no real science or truth to the process. The methodology behind it is nearly always based on statistics and mean averages defined by some mystical language that attaches some archetypical behaviour that statisticians and researchers think they have observed. Change one of the variables and the whole deck of supposed realities will come tumbling down. The only good component of cognitive behaviourial measuring tools is their inventors naming of the archetypical characters their mathematics supposedly represent. So the reason I might choose to work with a particular tool is because its authors creative use of metaphors to describe their mean average characters has some resonance with me and seems at least clever.

Listen to this podcast with Dr Gerard Petrucio, the designer of Foursight, a creative thinking preference tool that I do use,  and learn about the methodology behind the tool. And then...make your own mind up!!

Comments

[Christina]

Excellent Site. Like other Science teachers at TutorInn, I am also on constant lookout for articles from different fields. I shall keep a link of this article for future reference. The links tell us which sites to pass to students and which ones to avoid.
Regards
Christina
http://www.tutorinn.com