Information Science \ Social Science > social-info literacy solutions
Natural talent vs. Learned Ability
Recently at work we all had to take the Predictive Index test. It's really neat and has little to no face value, but produces some accurate results. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these results are infallible, I have some questions to ask.
The test measures, basically, your natural behavioral tendencies. These are the ways you behave without constraints of society and learned behavior, or under stress. It measures dominance (aggression), need for detail, pacing, and people personness. (that word is mine, but I'll let you all use it if you want!)
SO, the question is, does it matter if something comes naturally or if it's a learned behavior? For example, if someone is naturally dominant, but has learned to be a team player, is that worse than someone who is already a team player?
If so, then that ruins a lot of my personal theories about who we need in the information professions. What do you guys (this is the non gendered, man as a species, use of the word guys) think?
The test measures, basically, your natural behavioral tendencies. These are the ways you behave without constraints of society and learned behavior, or under stress. It measures dominance (aggression), need for detail, pacing, and people personness. (that word is mine, but I'll let you all use it if you want!)
SO, the question is, does it matter if something comes naturally or if it's a learned behavior? For example, if someone is naturally dominant, but has learned to be a team player, is that worse than someone who is already a team player?
If so, then that ruins a lot of my personal theories about who we need in the information professions. What do you guys (this is the non gendered, man as a species, use of the word guys) think?
About
Groups
Events
Badge
© 2009 Created by Woody Evans on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
