CSE 403
Personality Types
Slides by Valentin Razmov
[Link]
Resources
• Myers-Briggs Personality Type (MBTI) test
• Handouts (distributed during and after class)
• MBTI workshop, at Leadership Institute for Tomorrow (LIFT),
by Chris Loving
• Guest lecture in CSE403 Sp’04, by Prof. Ginorio
2
Motivation
• Humans tend to assume that others are like themselves.
– … and so others’ preferences “must be” like their own.
– The stronger one’s preferences are, the harder it is to imagine that
something very different may be just as valid!
• Personality tests (e.g., MBTI) have demonstrated that people’s
preferences differ along many axes.
• Hence, there is a need for conversations – to discover how to
communicate effectively with each individual.
– Crucial in a team setting where common goals are pursued
• MBTI provides a language to talk about our differences.
– … without marginalizing anyone.
3
Personality traits
• Introvert vs. Extrovert
– Where do you get your energy from?
• INtuitive vs. Sensory
– How do you get information?
• Thinking vs. Feeling
– How do you process information?
• Judging vs. Perceiving
– What is your lifestyle?
4
Results Aggregated
ENFJ ESTJ
INFJ ISTJ
ENFP ESFJ
INFP ISFJ
ENTJ ESTP
INTJ ISTP
ENTP ESFP
INTP ISFP
6
Results across quarters
Su’02 Su’03 Wi’04 Wi’05 Sp’05 Su’05 Su’06 Wi’07
I:E 14 : 6 16 : 9 11 : 10 23 : 8 12 : 9 7:3 5:3 30 : 9
N:S 12 : 8 17 : 8 13 : 8 23 : 8 10 : 11 9:1 5:3 23 : 16
T:F 13 : 7 15 : 10 14 : 7 23 : 8 14 : 7 6:4 6:2 32 : 7
J:P 15 : 5 17 : 8 18 : 3 23 : 8 18 : 3 8:2 7:1 30 : 9
Overall: I: 67.4%
N: 64.0%
T: 70.3%
J: 77.7%
7
Comparisons
UW CSE UW Engineering USA population
(undergrad, 403) (grad, workshop) (normalized)
ENFJ 13 ESTJ 3 ENFJ 14 ESTJ 6 ENFJ 4 ESTJ 13
INFJ 15 ISTJ 31 INFJ 15 ISTJ 5 INFJ 2 ISTJ 17
ENFP 2 ESFJ 5 ENFP 11 ESFJ 3 ENFP 12 ESFJ 18
INFP 2 ISFJ 9 INFP 16 ISFJ 5 INFP 7 ISFJ 21
ENTJ 19 ESTP 4 ENTJ 12 ESTP 0 ENTJ 3 ESTP 6
INTJ 41 ISTP 5 INTJ 16 ISTP 0 INTJ 3 ISTP 8
ENTP 9 ESFP 2 ENTP 6 ESFP 2 ENTP 5 ESFP 13
INTP 11 ISFP 4 INTP 9 ISFP 0 INTP 5 ISFP 13
UW CSE: I: 67.4%; N: 64.0%; T: 70.3%; J: 77.7%
UW Engr: I: 55.0%; N: 82.5%; T: 45.0%; J: 63.3%
USA gen.: I: 50.9%; N: 26.6%; T: 40.4%; J: 54.3%
8
Personality Types/Teams
• Effective teams usually have members of different types,
contributing strengths toward common goals.
• “A-ha” moments when one realizes what their teammates’
strongest “muscles” are and correlates this with their behavior
– “quiet” may indicate an introvert person, not an incompetent or
unengaged one.
– More than one “field marshal” (ENFJ) on a team may be a cause for
(and explanation for) power struggles.
• Is it a good idea to team up people based on personality types,
in addition to (technical) aptitude?
9
Disclaimer
• A personality type is not a definition of who you will be
tomorrow, much less who you will always be.
– It differs between situations (interpretations) and across
times.
• The personality type indicates which your currently strong
“muscles” are.
– … but those strengths can be changed at will.
10
Stereotypes
• Large body of research shows:
Implicit Assumptions Impact Evaluation
• Gender Bias and Research Papers
– Paludi and Bauer (Sex Roles, 1983)
Reviewer John T. Joan T. J. T.
(1-5, 1 top) McKay McKay McKay
Male 1.9 3.0 2.7
Female 2.3 3.0 2.6
• Gender Bias and Performance Evaluation
– Orchestra try-outs behind curtains
– Stereotype threat on exam performance
11
Stereotyping/Trends in CS
• Shifted focus of Computer Science in recent years
– Before: fundamental and theoretical discipline
– Now: (increasingly) application-oriented, practical
engineering discipline that serves many other fields
• “Geeky” stereotype of computer scientists persists
– … despite mounting evidence to the contrary
– Hurdle toward increased participation of underrepresented
groups as key constituencies with their unique and equally
valuable perspectives.
12
Take-away points
• There are many people who are very different from you in the
way they approach the world
– … but they are still perfectly reasonable.
– Working with such people requires mutual respect and care in
understanding. Effective communication is a prerequisite for this.
• Stereotyping is counterproductive: it closes doors and
eliminates desirable possibilities.
– “When you label me, you negate me.”
13
