![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
that 'what kind of thinker are you' test
Dec. 4th, 2003 12:19 pmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/thinker_quiz/research.shtml
(found via cortese)
I took it twice, first as a male to see if the professions changed (they didn't), and then as a female with slightly different answers. There were several questions where the correct answer for me was either "a lot" or "all the time", so, y'know, I had to re-take. I came up as Linguistic+Interpersonal or Linguistic.
What I thought was interesting was...elke's comment somewhere on my friends page that all the stereotypically female jobs listed paid for shit. I asked myself, are jobs associated with a specific mode of thought more highly valued? (Not quite her remark, but prompted by it.)
So, I went and looked at the possible results from a gender perspective. Right away it was worth noting that the first possible results were what I considered the most gender-divided.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/thinker_quiz/allresults.shtml
Jobs for the Logical-Mathematical thinker are scientist, engineer, lawyer. These are tasks that Western Civ, at least, considers highly valuable, are stereotypically male , and generally well-paid. And they're all about rules.
Jobs for the Linguistic thinker are poet, translator, librarian, salesperson. Many are stereotypically female AND communication or human-interface oriented. Less valued, generally not well-paid, and not about rules but flexibility, creativity, and frequently empathy. Stereotypically female stuff. Networking.
Jobs for the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal thinkers are all about understanding (of self or others) and *feelings*, and being able to articulate that understanding. More stereotypically female stuff.
Jobs for the Naturalist thinker read like Logical-Mathematical Thinker Lite: biologist, forestor.
Existential thinkers, Musical, Spatial and Kinesthetic thinkers -- nothing pops out, I don't see a clear role distinction or anything.
I'm probably full of shit, but it was an interesting exercise. If the first few types are the most common (which might be why they're listed first), then there does appear to be a general preference for 'objective', and dare I say hierarchical, thinking as more valued and stereotypically male.
The thing I think most valuable about these kinds of tests and Meyers-Briggs and whatnot is that they don't tell you what kind of thinker you're supposed to be. They just categorize what *is*. I'm not deviant for being the type I am, I'm just the type I am. I like that.
(found via cortese)
I took it twice, first as a male to see if the professions changed (they didn't), and then as a female with slightly different answers. There were several questions where the correct answer for me was either "a lot" or "all the time", so, y'know, I had to re-take. I came up as Linguistic+Interpersonal or Linguistic.
What I thought was interesting was...elke's comment somewhere on my friends page that all the stereotypically female jobs listed paid for shit. I asked myself, are jobs associated with a specific mode of thought more highly valued? (Not quite her remark, but prompted by it.)
So, I went and looked at the possible results from a gender perspective. Right away it was worth noting that the first possible results were what I considered the most gender-divided.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/thinker_quiz/allresults.shtml
Jobs for the Logical-Mathematical thinker are scientist, engineer, lawyer. These are tasks that Western Civ, at least, considers highly valuable, are stereotypically male , and generally well-paid. And they're all about rules.
Jobs for the Linguistic thinker are poet, translator, librarian, salesperson. Many are stereotypically female AND communication or human-interface oriented. Less valued, generally not well-paid, and not about rules but flexibility, creativity, and frequently empathy. Stereotypically female stuff. Networking.
Jobs for the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal thinkers are all about understanding (of self or others) and *feelings*, and being able to articulate that understanding. More stereotypically female stuff.
Jobs for the Naturalist thinker read like Logical-Mathematical Thinker Lite: biologist, forestor.
Existential thinkers, Musical, Spatial and Kinesthetic thinkers -- nothing pops out, I don't see a clear role distinction or anything.
I'm probably full of shit, but it was an interesting exercise. If the first few types are the most common (which might be why they're listed first), then there does appear to be a general preference for 'objective', and dare I say hierarchical, thinking as more valued and stereotypically male.
The thing I think most valuable about these kinds of tests and Meyers-Briggs and whatnot is that they don't tell you what kind of thinker you're supposed to be. They just categorize what *is*. I'm not deviant for being the type I am, I'm just the type I am. I like that.