Because I do coaching in a major psychometric program, the most common question I get is about the actual tests that I use, and why I use them, and whether or not they are viable (or predictive).
I like to talk about the difference between “observable” patterns and “statistical” patterns. When something is an observable pattern (like a lot of the four-tier continuum tests), that means that someone has observed the pattern in society and gone out to create a test and theory to support that observation (inductive reasoning). It is not the same as a statistical pattern.
Statistical patterns use deductive reasoning. This is the basis of the Strengthsfinder, for instance. The researchers (Clifton et al) started with a premise that there had to be a way to understand success. So they interviewed millions of successful people, trying to find the pattern. And the pattern emerged.
This is different from the kind of reasoning used to create some of the more “observable pattern” tests. There is nothing wrong with observable patterns. It’s just that they are primarily descriptive in nature (which means that anyone can make one, by observing humans and then making an observation about how humans pattern). Some are more accurate than others. All are fallible.
The way I use descriptive patterning is to say, “I have observed that a high number of writers who have pressure-prompted traits like to do X and this is why… because pressure-prompted traits create X kinds of behavior.” Then, that is a data point to start the discussion about whether you conform to that pattern or you diverge from it. It is absolutely possible to be a pressure-prompted person and not to conform to the habits of a pressure-prompted person.
But.
When that is the case, there is always a reason for it. And this is where the complexity of different patterns comes in. This is why, in Write Better-Faster, we study three different types of patterns.
- How you process information
- How you are motivated
- How you are wired for success
When there aren’t answers in the #1 category traits, there will likely be answers in either category #2 or category #3. It is the complexity of these traits (and likely others, including systems, goals, preferences, and capacities) that will produce the prescriptive answer.
It is a complex analysis process, which is why the class is a month long and is coach-directed, rather than self-directed. It’s why I’m so involved with each person who takes the class.
What I do as a coach (and a teacher, in this class) is get to know your system, analyze it (sometimes using the results of a psychometric test, sometimes using my own coaching experience), and help you find the best solutions for you as an individual. This class is a lot of work for me. But you are worth it.
What I am not going to do in this class: Give you the ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL. That does not exist. There is no such thing as a “fool-proof system” for productivity (or organization, or plotting, or editing), because we’re all different people. The way we process the world is different. The way we think about and experience life is different. But there are similarities between personalities that have been intensely studied and correlated over many years with accurate data that can give us a complex picture of your brain and help you be a better decision maker.
Humans pattern in observable ways, and in predictable ways. Even people who believe they don’t have any patterns have observable patterns. What I want to do is to utilize those observable and statistical patterns to help you figure out how to tweak your system to be at its best.