Speaker 1: I guess what will? What's that mango? So I was
Speaker 1: listening to the Harry Potter audio books with my kids
Speaker 1: and reliving how much I love those stories. But do
Speaker 1: you know what scenes still gives me anxiety all these
Speaker 1: years later. It's when Harry sits under the sorting hat.
Speaker 1: So there are I don't know what seven or eight
Speaker 1: battle scenes with Voldemart, and it's the sorting hat that
Speaker 1: makes you anxious. It is, I mean, to me, there's
Speaker 1: something so palpable about his anxiety and that sorting hat scene,
Speaker 1: like this dumb, fidgety hat determines your fate in front
Speaker 1: of your whole school, and Harry is so nervous about it,
Speaker 1: like he's sitting there, sweating, desperately trying to outthink this
Speaker 1: test and trying to convince a dumb hat that he
Speaker 1: should be sorted into Griffin Door instead of Slytherin. And
Speaker 1: it's not like you're gonna apply for a transfer from
Speaker 1: one house to another, like once you're in your sorted
Speaker 1: for life. But what's terrifying to me is that your
Speaker 1: destiny is all wrapped up in that single moment, which
Speaker 1: I mean, I love to organize people using the sorting
Speaker 1: hat system, Like my dad is very clearly a raven claw,
Speaker 1: my mom's a huffle poff, my sister is obviously a Slytherin,
Speaker 1: totally a sin. But as I started to think about
Speaker 1: it more, I realized why I feel that anxiety, and
Speaker 1: it's from taking aptitude tests as a kid. Like in
Speaker 1: sixth grade, my whole class was forced to take a
Speaker 1: test that was supposed to give us a better sense
Speaker 1: of what careers we should pursue. But as I was
Speaker 1: taking it, I actually remember thinking, well, if I answered
Speaker 1: this question this way, does that mean I can't be
Speaker 1: a mechanical engineer or would this answer stop me from
Speaker 1: being a teacher? Like I wanted options. I didn't want
Speaker 1: to be boxed in by an exam, But revisiting that
Speaker 1: experience through the Harry Potter sorting hat made me wonder
Speaker 1: how accurate our personality tests then, how much stock should
Speaker 1: we put in them? And is my sister really a Slytherin?
Speaker 1: Because she sure seems Slytherin to me. So that's what
Speaker 1: this episode is all about. Right, Welcome to Part Time Genius.
Speaker 1: I'm Will Pearson, and as always I'm joined by my
Speaker 1: good friend Man Gueshot Ticketer, and today we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about personality tests and whether they really work. But
Speaker 1: before we do that, I'm just gonna place this marshmallow
Speaker 1: right here, Mango, right here in the middle of the table. Come.
Speaker 1: You know you're trolling me, And if you don't eat
Speaker 1: it for fifteen minutes, there might just be another marshmallow
Speaker 1: for you. Here it is. You know how much I
Speaker 1: hate the marshmallow self control experiment? I do, but I
Speaker 1: don't really understand. Why. Is it because you hate marshmallows? No,
Speaker 1: it's it's because I don't understand how it can be
Speaker 1: a good test. Like people always talk about how a
Speaker 1: kid who has self control is going to be successful,
Speaker 1: And I get how if someone tells a kid to
Speaker 1: sit and behave and not eat the marshmallow and they
Speaker 1: wait and delay their gratification, that it may be an
Speaker 1: indicator of a successful future for a certain type of kids.
Speaker 1: But what if that kid comes from a rough background,
Speaker 1: what if there isn't food security in his or her home,
Speaker 1: or what if they come from a home where the
Speaker 1: adults lie to you. Isn't a hungry kid from that
Speaker 1: background going to rely on their experience and be more
Speaker 1: successful by eating the marshmallow in hand instead of waiting
Speaker 1: for two in the bush. Just for the record, no
Speaker 1: one's hiding marshmallows and bushes. But I do agree with you,
Speaker 1: and more importantly, the test creator, Walter Michelle himself agrees
Speaker 1: with you. How's that? Well, you know that wonderful podcast
Speaker 1: in Visibilia. So they had Walter Michelle on recently where
Speaker 1: he was voicing his frustration with the study. He was
Speaker 1: saying that it was totally misinterpreted. His feeling was that
Speaker 1: a kid's destiny and success can't be predicted by a
Speaker 1: single marshmallow. I mean, he thought that was just as
Speaker 1: ridiculous as we do. So I've gotten this wrong for
Speaker 1: a long time. What's the study actually about. Well, it's
Speaker 1: really about how personality is actually this flexible thing. Like
Speaker 1: if you take a kid who can't wait to eat
Speaker 1: a chocolate chip cookie. And to be clear, these children
Speaker 1: were basically cookie moms with zero self control. But if
Speaker 1: you sit a cookie monster down and you encourage them
Speaker 1: to ignore the treat in front of them and pretend
Speaker 1: it isn't there, suddenly they can increase their willpower from
Speaker 1: a few seconds to up to fifteen minutes, So that
Speaker 1: actually feels like a totally different study, or at least
Speaker 1: very different from how I've always heard it talked about,
Speaker 1: which is kind of amazing. Also, I I just hearing
Speaker 1: about marshmallows makes me wanted to take this on a
Speaker 1: tangent about peets and how marshmallow birds used to have
Speaker 1: wings like, But since we're talking about self control, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna get this back on track, and Press is the
Speaker 1: king of tangents, I'm gona pressed with that self control.
Speaker 1: So well, we're gonna talk today about personality tests and
Speaker 1: whether they really work. And we've got an incredible guest
Speaker 1: on today is Jonathan Cats from the cult comedy show
Speaker 1: You and I love so much, Doctor Cats, and we've
Speaker 1: got two other very special guests on as well. That's right,
Speaker 1: we'll be talking to our sisters, who are both super smart,
Speaker 1: and oddly, they both have PhDs in psychology, so we'll
Speaker 1: get them to analyze us a little later. How weird
Speaker 1: is that that both of our sisters or PhDs in
Speaker 1: psychology brought up? But that'll be a lot of fun. Now.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons I like the story of Michelle's
Speaker 1: marshmallow tests and how it's been extrapolated over the years.
Speaker 1: Is that historically speaking, there seems to be this innate
Speaker 1: desire to predict our futures through tests and different experiments, like,
Speaker 1: if we only know this one thing about ourselves, we
Speaker 1: can figure out how to be a success. And it's
Speaker 1: kind of incredible how big the field is. So in
Speaker 1: two thousand twelve, personality testing was a five hundred million
Speaker 1: dollar industry with well over tests on the market, and
Speaker 1: it's only grown since then. Yeah, business is clearly booming.
Speaker 1: For decades, workplaces have used personality tests to groom management,
Speaker 1: colleges have used them to pair roommates. You know, dating
Speaker 1: sites use them. I mean, there are Myers Briggs variations
Speaker 1: all over the internet. But before we get into those,
Speaker 1: why don't we talk a little about the first personality
Speaker 1: tests that really took America by storm and inspired one
Speaker 1: of America's greatest poets along the way, and that's Phrenology.
Speaker 1: I'm all for it. But back, before we do that,
Speaker 1: I do want to let our listeners know that we
Speaker 1: really started thinking about this topic and reading the book
Speaker 1: by Annie Murphy Paul called Cult of Personality. But anyway
Speaker 1: you were saying, yeah, I was talking about phrenology. So
Speaker 1: I don't know if this happens to you, but I
Speaker 1: feel like periodically I'll be in like a thrift store,
Speaker 1: a vintage shop, and I'll see one of those skulls
Speaker 1: that it is all mapped out with a particular ridge
Speaker 1: on the noggin, like something that shows like this is
Speaker 1: where courage comes from, or anger or whatever. And I've
Speaker 1: always been curious how this skull mapping got its start,
Speaker 1: and it turns out it's all rooted in jealousy. Jealousy
Speaker 1: how so it goes back to this guy, Franz Joseph
Speaker 1: gall who was studying medicine in Vienna in the seventeen
Speaker 1: eighties and he wasn't measuring up to his classmates. Basically,
Speaker 1: Gall knew he was smarter than his peers, or thought
Speaker 1: he was, but he found himself scoring lower on tests.
Speaker 1: So we tried to puzzle out how these inferior minds
Speaker 1: were beating him on exams, and then he noticed a pattern.
Speaker 1: They all had beady bulging eye was yeah, well, that's
Speaker 1: what he thought. So he took note and theorized that
Speaker 1: their aptitude for cramming verbal information was causing their eyes
Speaker 1: to protrude, like, yeah, their mind was supposedly pushing on
Speaker 1: their brains and making certain features more prominent on their heads.
Speaker 1: And once he got a degree, he started collecting data
Speaker 1: to support his theory, Like he started with beggars and criminals,
Speaker 1: trying to figure out where the telltale signs of pickpockets are.
Speaker 1: Then he moved to studying lower class working folk, like
Speaker 1: he lured them into chatting with some good wine and
Speaker 1: get them to spill their secrets, and then he tried
Speaker 1: to map their heads against those traits. And he gradually
Speaker 1: moved up to high society, and along the way he
Speaker 1: started charting various bumpy areas that could determine cowardice or quarrelsomeness.
Speaker 1: And along with things like mechanical aptitude, it all seems
Speaker 1: like a very weird recipe for stereotyping people. I mean,
Speaker 1: he actually, you know what it reminds me of just
Speaker 1: a little. And I know this isn't quite the same,
Speaker 1: but I remember seeing this story on society pages about
Speaker 1: Jews and how they used to dominate basketball in the
Speaker 1: early nineteen thirties. So in trying to explain why Jews
Speaker 1: were so good at basketball, the new York Daily News
Speaker 1: said this the game places a premium on an alert
Speaker 1: scheming mind, flashy trickiness, artful dodging, and general smart alecness.
Speaker 1: It's explaining away their wins on the court with these
Speaker 1: horrible stereotypes. But it's almost like when you don't understand
Speaker 1: how someone could be better than you. In Gall's case,
Speaker 1: it was exams, and in this case it was basketball.
Speaker 1: You just find a stereotype and explain the whole thing away.
Speaker 1: That's so weird, but you know, this idea that you
Speaker 1: could divine someone's full nature by examining their skulls, bumps.
Speaker 1: It was really captivating to the public. So it moved
Speaker 1: from Europe to America, where it really took off, partially
Speaker 1: because practitioners moved from just identifying criminals and keeping the
Speaker 1: working class in their place to really flattering people. They
Speaker 1: needed to believe in it, and it was bolstered by
Speaker 1: the fact that it all truly felt rooted in science,
Speaker 1: like phrenologists had painstakingly mapped over thirty areas of personality.
Speaker 1: But the real genius of selling it to the public
Speaker 1: was perfected by these two brothers, Orson and Lorenzo Fowler,
Speaker 1: and their partner Samuel Wells, like together they promised this
Speaker 1: mental photograph of your strengths and your weaknesses, which is
Speaker 1: basically what personality tests still do. I mean, as the
Speaker 1: author Annie Murphy Paul points out future presidents James Garfield
Speaker 1: and John Tyler, they were thoroughly impressed and convinced by
Speaker 1: their readings, and Claire Bardon took courses in it. I mean,
Speaker 1: businesses were putting stock in it for assessing their hires,
Speaker 1: and this trend from the eighteen hundreds it continued well
Speaker 1: into the nineteen thirties. But the person it seems to
Speaker 1: have the most impact on, and this is the part
Speaker 1: I love about personality tests. Is it truly affected Walt
Speaker 1: Whitman Like as a wandering soul, he couldn't quite figure
Speaker 1: out what his career paths should be, and his readings
Speaker 1: basically gave him the confidence to believe in his genius
Speaker 1: and actually push the boundaries of poetry and oddly some
Speaker 1: of the vocabulary and his poems that comes straight from phrenology.
Speaker 1: Jur Well, you know, I was reading up on the
Speaker 1: Foulers and they were such pop personalities at the time
Speaker 1: that they also have the ability to launch some interesting
Speaker 1: trends like orson Fowler and his quote. Scientific research determined
Speaker 1: that circles were the most efficient design in nature, so
Speaker 1: he proposed that circular houses would make more efficient homes.
Speaker 1: But since circles are hard to recreate, he suggested people
Speaker 1: build octagonal homes made of concrete, and the trend kind
Speaker 1: of took off. I mean, he advocated for some other
Speaker 1: modern ideas to like central heating and door plumbing, big
Speaker 1: glass windows, all of which he claimed would make for
Speaker 1: healthier living. But it's still kind of amazing that he
Speaker 1: was so respected that he could just say the words
Speaker 1: octagonal houses and snap people would be all in. Speaking
Speaker 1: of all in, I'm gonna take these marshmallows and put
Speaker 1: them onto my mouth while we break for a quick
Speaker 1: That's a great idea. So who do we have on
Speaker 1: the line today, a mango? Well, we've got two very
Speaker 1: special us, your sister and mine, Doctor Bama Hagar and
Speaker 1: Dr Shant Way. To emphasize that, doctor, that's right. A
Speaker 1: fun fact about them is that they're both way smarter
Speaker 1: than us, which not only have they told us repeatedly
Speaker 1: over the years, but they both have PhDs in psychology
Speaker 1: to prove it. How weird is that? So welcome Bama
Speaker 1: and Shanta. Thank you now, Mango, I have to say
Speaker 1: my childhood, as you know, I've talked about this before
Speaker 1: and gone to therapy for this as well, was not
Speaker 1: always easy. Having an older sister that um was so
Speaker 1: interested in psychology that I kind of became a guinea pick.
Speaker 1: And she uh figured out that I had O c
Speaker 1: D pretty early on and would set up these little
Speaker 1: experiments around the house and would wait for me to
Speaker 1: walk into a room when she'd moved the salt and
Speaker 1: pepper shaker a little off center from the kitchen table,
Speaker 1: and I would walk in and correct them, and of
Speaker 1: course she would jump out and be like, ah, I
Speaker 1: knew it, You're weird. So Um, So that's that's what
Speaker 1: life was like for me as a kid. But Bama,
Speaker 1: so I have to ask you here this part of
Speaker 1: your inspiration for going on to become a psychologist, no question.
Speaker 1: I really didn't think about clinical child psychology until I
Speaker 1: got to watch you develop will, which was a lot
Speaker 1: of fun. Um. The O c D thing definitely did
Speaker 1: not try to pick on you, but that is kind
Speaker 1: of current. So I still sort of move things around
Speaker 1: if I visit your house to you know, just put
Speaker 1: something a jar in the kitchen, or you know, maybe
Speaker 1: something that just shouldn't be there, like a potholder on
Speaker 1: the counter. That's that's just not right. And I just
Speaker 1: kind of try to leave those things after I visit,
Speaker 1: and that's much appreciated. Now, currently you're working with the
Speaker 1: Autism Society of Alabama. Do you want to talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about the work you guys have been involved
Speaker 1: in very recently? Oh? Sure, I'm an autism advocate, so
Speaker 1: I have clinical child psychology, but my son, who is
Speaker 1: now seventeen, has bought in spectrum disorder, So I'm an
Speaker 1: autism advocate and I don't currently practice. But just recently
Speaker 1: in the state of Alabama, we passed a autism insurance
Speaker 1: law so that UM private insurance will cover autism therapy.
Speaker 1: And that law has been passed or similar law has
Speaker 1: been passed in forty five days and we were the
Speaker 1: forty six so we were thrilled to get that done
Speaker 1: and we're hoping that it will help thousands of Alabama
Speaker 1: families as they pay for autism therapies and you know,
Speaker 1: try to help their child to let developed to their potential,
Speaker 1: which is amazing. Just watching that from a distance was incredible.
Speaker 1: So this is I wanted to say something about my sister.
Speaker 1: One of the things that's popular in our family law
Speaker 1: is just how bossy and what a know it all
Speaker 1: she was when she was a kid. And there's a
Speaker 1: story about how we just moved into our neighborhood and
Speaker 1: Delaware and our mom looked out the window and there
Speaker 1: was a circle of neighbors just gossiping in front of
Speaker 1: our driveway, and when she went to inquire what was
Speaker 1: going on, she found Shanta in the center explaining all
Speaker 1: the day's gossip to everyone. And so Shanta, I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you, like, why do you think you're so
Speaker 1: interested in psychology? Do you think any of that's rooted
Speaker 1: in wanting to know what's going on with other people? Oh? Absolutely, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I always wanted to know everyone's business, know what was
Speaker 1: going on. In fact, I think there's another story when
Speaker 1: we went to the zoo and instead of looking at
Speaker 1: the animals, I was turned around looking at the people. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I've always been interested in in people and getting to know,
Speaker 1: you know, what makes them tick. You currently teach Shanta
Speaker 1: the Temple in Philadelphia. But I heard you actually did
Speaker 1: your master's thesis on the equal sign. Now it feels
Speaker 1: like the equal sign has been around for a while,
Speaker 1: so what sort of new discoveries are there to be
Speaker 1: made about it? Uh? Yeah, the equals SIGNE has been
Speaker 1: around for a little while, um, But it turns out
Speaker 1: that kids still don't really understand it very well. UM.
Speaker 1: So yeah, back when I was doing my masters, we
Speaker 1: were looking at UM what kids thought of the equal sign.
Speaker 1: And in fact, when you ask kids what the equal
Speaker 1: sign means, oftentimes they'll tell you what we call an
Speaker 1: operational definition that really thinks about what you do with
Speaker 1: equal sign. So they'll say things like you put the
Speaker 1: answer after, or you total up all of the numbers,
Speaker 1: or you know, you put whatever. Um. Uh, some you
Speaker 1: get in the blank after because kids are used to
Speaker 1: seeing um equal sign and then a blank sign right after.
Speaker 1: But it turns out that those kids who actually do
Speaker 1: their homework more often UM, and who get more practice
Speaker 1: with equal sign UM followed by a blank, they actually
Speaker 1: have a little bit more difficulty when they get to
Speaker 1: algebra UM and can't really understand the idea that it's
Speaker 1: a relational definition they need, which is really the idea
Speaker 1: that you have um the same quantity on both sides. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she is part of it, kind of figure out how
Speaker 1: to really help kids learn that they have the wrong
Speaker 1: understanding of equal plign Well, let's get to the quiz here, Mango,
Speaker 1: what's the name of the game we're playing with our
Speaker 1: sisters today. It's a little game called Oh brother where
Speaker 1: every answer pays tribute to the wonderful set of brothers.
Speaker 1: All Right, so if we were to say Groucho, Harpo
Speaker 1: and Zeppo, you'd say Mark's brothers. Right, this is going
Speaker 1: to be pretty rapid fire. So we're going to put
Speaker 1: sixty seconds on the clock and see how many you
Speaker 1: can get. And you're playing as a team, so we'll
Speaker 1: take whatever answer gets blurted out first. So let's get
Speaker 1: that clock ready, all right, you guys ready, I'm ready. Okay,
Speaker 1: here we go, Question number one. Pioneers in Flight, Wilbur
Speaker 1: and Orville were known as Yes h G TV show
Speaker 1: where twins Jonathan Now, wait, wait, wait wait? Should we stop?
Speaker 1: Should we stop? What? Because we got that one? Right?
Speaker 1: Should we stop? We just say we won? No, that's
Speaker 1: not how this works. Yeah, they did they way, good job, guys.
Speaker 1: All right, has the clock on their Okay, here we go, alright.
Speaker 1: Question number two h G t V brothers were twins
Speaker 1: Jonathan and Drew people transform fixer Uppers. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to know that. This is where I don't property brothers.
Speaker 1: You got it all right? Question number three, I like
Speaker 1: to celebrate over everyone, all right. Filmmakers. Filmmakers behind Fargo
Speaker 1: and The Big Lebowski. Yes, nineteen eighty movie featuring SNL
Speaker 1: stars John Belushi and dan Ackroyd. Alright you question number five.
Speaker 1: Comedic brothers that include Sean, Marlon, Damon and Keenan Ivory,
Speaker 1: Wayne's brother You got it all right? Production company that
Speaker 1: made Batman and Wonder Woman also used to be a
Speaker 1: TV network called w B. Yes, you got it all right?
Speaker 1: The bonus question the last one American. Yes we didn't.
Speaker 1: We didn't celebrate that one. All right, Here we go.
Speaker 1: The bonus question American pop psychologist and talk show personality
Speaker 1: who wrote a daily newspaper advice column from nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: to two thousand thirteen. And these are brothers. No, it's
Speaker 1: a trick question. Dr joy Yes, Dr Joyce brothers. Well,
Speaker 1: they flew through this and amazing John so Chanton Vema
Speaker 1: you did incredibly well, and for that you win our
Speaker 1: grand prize, which is a note to your mother from
Speaker 1: us singing your praises, which is especially poignant because it's
Speaker 1: our mother too. That's right. Congratulations you two, and thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Thank goods. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: Part Time Genius. Today, we're talking about personality tests. Now,
Speaker 1: my ago, I know you and I both took an
Speaker 1: online Myers Briggs knockoff tests. So how do you do?
Speaker 1: I aced it nice now. I got an I N
Speaker 1: t J, which means I'm introverted, intuitive, thinking and judging,
Speaker 1: which actually kind of makes sense to me. I mean
Speaker 1: Myers Briggs. As you know, charts for binaries, like you
Speaker 1: could be introverted or extroverted. You could be intuitive or sensing,
Speaker 1: just thinking or feeling and perceiving or judging, and those
Speaker 1: combinations yield sixteen different personality types. But as an I
Speaker 1: N t J, I just want to let you know
Speaker 1: I'm in really good company like Arnold Schwarzenegger's there, Jane Austen,
Speaker 1: Isaac Newton, also Jay z and Angela Lansbury Landsbury. Now
Speaker 1: that now it makes sense, you're totally a Landsbury. I
Speaker 1: mean we're all pretty much the same person, like wrapping
Speaker 1: bars and solving murders every week. Yep, that sounds about right. Okay,
Speaker 1: Well I'm an e n f J. Okay, so that
Speaker 1: means you're extroverted and intuitive and feeling and judging, which
Speaker 1: is great because we're both judgy. But that puts you
Speaker 1: in good company too. You get Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: Nelson Mendel, okay, Martin Luther King. All right, I think
Speaker 1: every important black figure is in the n f J. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's pretty much always been my goal. Oh and
Speaker 1: also bono, yep, that's all. That's all important black figures.
Speaker 1: Well done. So I'm always in two minds about this stuff,
Speaker 1: like I feel the same way about astrology. I'm happy
Speaker 1: to be a tourist when it means I'm just like
Speaker 1: Wes Anderson, who you know shares my birthday, or William
Speaker 1: Shakespeare because we're all talented and born in spring. But
Speaker 1: when it suggests I'm a Hitler or like a Genghis Khan,
Speaker 1: who are also apparently born in spring, I get a
Speaker 1: little more suspicious. Yeah yeah, well, I mean I tend
Speaker 1: to put a little more stock and personality tests than astrology,
Speaker 1: and one of the geniuses of Myers Briggs is that
Speaker 1: there aren't any bad types. Of course, it's also one
Speaker 1: of the criticisms. But part of the reason it really
Speaker 1: took off is because it was one of the first
Speaker 1: personality tests truly designed to understand health. The end of
Speaker 1: it jewels. But before we get into that, let's go
Speaker 1: back a little and chat about one of its predecessors,
Speaker 1: the m m p I, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
Speaker 1: That's right, It is a little bit of a mouthful,
Speaker 1: but as you can guess, the test was developed in Minnesota.
Speaker 1: It was the work of a neuroscientist, J. Charlie McKinley
Speaker 1: and the psychologist Stark Hathaway, and the test was designed
Speaker 1: to understand and diagnose patients. And it's interesting because the
Speaker 1: questions are so drastically different from the test before it.
Speaker 1: So in prior data sheets, the questions were ridiculously transparent,
Speaker 1: and they would ask things like are you happy most
Speaker 1: of the time, which it was obviously easy to gain.
Speaker 1: So the pair did something completely different. Instead of assuming
Speaker 1: they knew how patients would answer the questions, they surveyed
Speaker 1: a massive number of what they called Minnesota normals. But
Speaker 1: they also surveyed a number of patients, and if the
Speaker 1: majority of the normals answered a true false question one way,
Speaker 1: while say, schizophrenics patients answered another, they use that as
Speaker 1: a question that could indicate schizophrenia. You know, I kind
Speaker 1: of want to support the Minnesota normal sports team, that's right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So was this all like revolutionary for the time? Oh? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and it was surprisingly effective. But that's not the best part.
Speaker 1: I mean, what's truly fascinating is the strange mix of
Speaker 1: questions that came out of trying to understand and split
Speaker 1: up these populations. Let me just read you a few
Speaker 1: of the five four questions on the list. So these
Speaker 1: are all things you can either agree with or disagree
Speaker 1: with in this in this survey. So the first one
Speaker 1: is I think Lincoln was greater than Washington, or women
Speaker 1: should not be allowed in cocktail bars, or so good
Speaker 1: if the money were right, I would like to work
Speaker 1: for a circus or a carnival. I don't know how
Speaker 1: to answer that, partially because they've lumped circus and carnival together.
Speaker 1: I feel like I'd be so in my head about
Speaker 1: what's the right thing to say. Yeah, and there were
Speaker 1: gross bodily ones too, Like I've never had any black,
Speaker 1: tarry looking bowel movement. It's so gross. But the test
Speaker 1: took off with psychologists and psychiatrists across the country partially
Speaker 1: because it was pretty scientific. I mean a number of
Speaker 1: the other exams of the time, like the roor shock
Speaker 1: ink blot test, which we've all seen samples of, they
Speaker 1: either overpathologized so called normal patients, assigning them conditions they
Speaker 1: didn't have, or the test needed too much fuzzy interpretation.
Speaker 1: But with the m m p I there were numbers
Speaker 1: to back up every conclusion, and half away included all
Speaker 1: sorts of really smart trick questions that would raise red
Speaker 1: flags if a patient, you know, try to outsmart the
Speaker 1: test or something. So by the mid nineteen fifties it
Speaker 1: was the most widely used test of its kind, used
Speaker 1: to diagnosed illness in prisons, doctor's offices, and mental wards
Speaker 1: even which is interesting, but how did it transition into
Speaker 1: a personality test? I mean, it seems like it was
Speaker 1: being used to identify pathological extremes for the most part.
Speaker 1: Yeah it was, but it's more and more quote normal
Speaker 1: people took the test, and more and more data was gathered.
Speaker 1: Grad students started seeing these patterns and individual profiles, and
Speaker 1: so they started sorting these by strengths and weaknesses. So
Speaker 1: it became more of a personality test over time. But
Speaker 1: it wasn't an easy road for the m m p I.
Speaker 1: According to the Cult of Personality. After the era of McCarthy,
Speaker 1: m had passed, the test was on the ropes because
Speaker 1: senators were wary of any exam that forced people to
Speaker 1: answer really prying questions. You know the fact that it
Speaker 1: was used by government organizations and employers that really bothered
Speaker 1: some representatives. But it squeaked past the congressional hearing on
Speaker 1: life support and then remained in pretty wide use. Then
Speaker 1: in the nineteen nineties it took another serious blow. What
Speaker 1: happened then, it was and Renaissenter told its employees that
Speaker 1: if they didn't pass the test, they couldn't be promoted
Speaker 1: into management roles. And when employees were forced to spend
Speaker 1: five hours answering what they felt were pretty irrelevant through
Speaker 1: false questions like I would like to be a florist
Speaker 1: or I guess I know some pretty undesirable life, they
Speaker 1: filed a class action. I mean, who doesn't know some
Speaker 1: pretty undesirable type an you're really apparently one of them.
Speaker 1: Read I'm a special agent of God, which sounds maybe
Speaker 1: appropriate for psychiatric evaluation, but kind of troubling in the
Speaker 1: context of determining whether someone could sell furniture, although I'm
Speaker 1: guessing a special agent of God could sell furniture, probably,
Speaker 1: so probably. What's crazy to me is just how popular
Speaker 1: the exam is around the globe. Like, I know, it's
Speaker 1: been translated into a monk and Urdu and Norwegian, which
Speaker 1: honestly feels so strange when you consider some of the
Speaker 1: questions that are getting asked, like I'm curious how the
Speaker 1: monk feel about whether Lincoln is a greater president than
Speaker 1: Washington and what that could possibly indicate other than the
Speaker 1: love of like small change. Well, it's interesting to see
Speaker 1: that while the m mp I had a second life
Speaker 1: as a personality test, Hathaway, who co created it, was
Speaker 1: disillusioned by the end of his life about its value.
Speaker 1: He even said, I often have serious doubts about whether
Speaker 1: it is meaningful to expect that we can develop tests
Speaker 1: to measure or analyze personality. Of course, Isabel Myers and
Speaker 1: Katherine Briggs felt a little differently, but why don't we
Speaker 1: talk about that after a little break, So, Mango, as
Speaker 1: you know, pretty much every day during college, right around lunchtime,
Speaker 1: we'd get together and watch our favorite show, Doctor Cats
Speaker 1: Professional Therapist. It was on Comedy Central. It was a
Speaker 1: show where he'd get comedians to come on and play
Speaker 1: themselves as they would be his patients for him as
Speaker 1: he was playing this role of Doctor Cats. And this
Speaker 1: was around the time that we were starting Mental Flaws. Now,
Speaker 1: do you think this may have had some inspiration or
Speaker 1: have been some influence on us starting Mental Flaws? Probably not,
Speaker 1: Probably not, But it was a good show. It made
Speaker 1: us laugh and it was a lot of fun. Well.
Speaker 1: Audible actually is releasing a new season. It's been over
Speaker 1: a decade since Dr Cats was on TV, and the
Speaker 1: first several episodes are out in audio form on Audible.
Speaker 1: You'll hear guests such as Ray Romano, Sarah Silverman, dom Irrera,
Speaker 1: weird Al, and several others. And we are so happy
Speaker 1: to have him on the line with us today. Jonathan
Speaker 1: Kat's welcome to Part Time Genius. Thank you, Jonathan. How
Speaker 1: much do you rewatch the original show and did you
Speaker 1: rewatch any of it? For the new Audible series I did,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't really the helpful because we're creating new
Speaker 1: episodes and um, it took me down the long, wonderful path.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do love to watch the show, but
Speaker 1: this was not the education. You know, speaking of watching
Speaker 1: or rewatching the show, It's hard to remember how novel
Speaker 1: the squiggle vision was when it first came on, and
Speaker 1: I'm curious to hear why the decision was made to
Speaker 1: go with that style of animation. Well, two reasons. One
Speaker 1: is that the motion of the characters represents their emotional
Speaker 1: turmoil and it's cheap, right. Yeah, maybe one of those
Speaker 1: is to prior Actually these were those things are true. Actually,
Speaker 1: anibitions and my patients were not internal when this showed up.
Speaker 1: So one of the things I love when I, you know,
Speaker 1: either read interviews or have heard interviews with you, is
Speaker 1: that you're always so generous and crediting others, Like I
Speaker 1: feel like you talk about learning from Tom Snyder, how
Speaker 1: John Benjamin helped you break out of a rot and
Speaker 1: what fun it was to work together. Um, and I
Speaker 1: think that's such a rare thing, but it also comes
Speaker 1: up in your comedy. I feel like your position as
Speaker 1: a comedian on the show is is kind of a
Speaker 1: generous one. Do you talk about how hard it is
Speaker 1: to maybe be funny and facilitate a conversation like that?
Speaker 1: You know, in the early days of the show, was
Speaker 1: made my actual interest in their lives and how they felt,
Speaker 1: because I do care about people, oddly enough, and that's
Speaker 1: interfered with the comedy. Mum, it's just like, because there's
Speaker 1: nothing funny but the way they feel. No. I mean,
Speaker 1: I happened to care, but people in general inculdn't comedians.
Speaker 1: But we discovered pretty early on that that wasn't working comedically,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't certainly wasn't making anybody feel better, right right,
Speaker 1: So I'm curious about that format. Then the the idea
Speaker 1: for having you know, guests come on and be your patients,
Speaker 1: it seems like it would be a way, even though
Speaker 1: you're acting, it seems like it would be a way
Speaker 1: of maybe getting them to open up a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Did you did you find that to be the case?
Speaker 1: They did, and it actually made one woman cry and
Speaker 1: one guy feel better. And this is this is after
Speaker 1: eighty one episodes. It's not not a great record, right
Speaker 1: right throw Now, did you find yourself pulling anything from
Speaker 1: actual therapy sessions, maybe your visits to a therapist and
Speaker 1: to the show in any way, Yeah, I did. But
Speaker 1: but more importantly is that I haven't spend hundreds of
Speaker 1: dollars trying to make my own therapists laugh. Whis just
Speaker 1: a total waste of money. Yeah, it seems like, I mean,
Speaker 1: she would have a good time and then I and
Speaker 1: then I give her a check and I leave. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can see how that might be problematic. But did
Speaker 1: you did you feel any better? I actually benefited from therapy.
Speaker 1: A couple comes in my life, and I'm a believer.
Speaker 1: We loved Carry Shandling so much, and and the fact
Speaker 1: that he was on your show. I was curious if
Speaker 1: if you went back and watched that episode after she
Speaker 1: passed away. I did. I did because I was hoping
Speaker 1: that they would show some of that footage at his
Speaker 1: memorial service. Um so I was kind of put together
Speaker 1: a fair will using footage of from the show and
Speaker 1: just my own. When last conversations with the guy was
Speaker 1: so uh so much the character characterization of who he was,
Speaker 1: because I reminded him that every time had laughed at
Speaker 1: one of his jokes, he said it sounds like I've
Speaker 1: been shot. And then I when I told her, when
Speaker 1: I reminded Garry that he said, I think I said
Speaker 1: wounded so much like him, just to fine tune my memory.
Speaker 1: That's pretty terrific. All these incredible comedians I feel like
Speaker 1: I got to see more of through your show, and
Speaker 1: that's part of the reason I love the In addition
Speaker 1: to liking the storylines, I think when you guys were
Speaker 1: in college, most stand up shows had to do with
Speaker 1: the brick wall, yeah, and somebody sitting in front of
Speaker 1: a tone jokes. M hmm. It's a really nice departure
Speaker 1: Doctor Cans from that format. And and like mangoing, some
Speaker 1: things didn't work unless unless they were animated. Look, a
Speaker 1: friend of my, Lucien Iighter, who is a comedian and
Speaker 1: worked for Raymond, talks about how when he came to
Speaker 1: Massachusetts to do the show, he discovers it to things
Speaker 1: that would could never tell on stage, but would we
Speaker 1: work in animation And if I could think of one
Speaker 1: of those, would be very waiting to hear what that was. Well, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today. Aren't you
Speaker 1: going to ask me any questions that might reveal my
Speaker 1: personality type. That's actually have we done the route have you? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Well we'll assess that after this. Have you heard any
Speaker 1: of the just out of curiosity? Um, not really part
Speaker 1: of this interview. Have you heard any of Paula pound
Speaker 1: Stones new show? Oh? Just a minute of it. I'm
Speaker 1: so happy she's doing a new show. She's one of
Speaker 1: my heroes, Paula Poundson. Yeah, but they do that on
Speaker 1: on her show. She's one of that. She's one of
Speaker 1: three people, three comedians who have made me lie down
Speaker 1: on the floor because I can't walk anywhere because I'm laughing.
Speaker 1: So who were the other two? Well, John Benjamin actually
Speaker 1: has maybe faint twice, it's the whole other time. And
Speaker 1: then the combination of Laura and Sarah Silverman made me
Speaker 1: lie down on in traffic in Los Angeles. Didn't just hard? Jonathan,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for being on part time Genius. Hope
Speaker 1: everyone will check out the newest season of Dr Kat's
Speaker 1: Professional Therapist on Audible. Thanks so much, Jonathan, Thank you.
Speaker 1: So it's time to talk about the big one, the
Speaker 1: mother daughter of all personality tests Myers Briggs, Myers Briggs. Right,
Speaker 1: So most people know at least a little of the
Speaker 1: origin story Myers Briggs was developed by this very close
Speaker 1: mother daughter pair, Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers and
Speaker 1: Catherine was fascinated with people and understanding them, and she
Speaker 1: craved time in her study like she put her kids
Speaker 1: to bed, then she'd be reading and scrawling notes through
Speaker 1: the night. And for birthdays or anniversaries, all she wanted
Speaker 1: was more filing cabinets to store her papers. She sounds
Speaker 1: pretty organized. Yeah, she was super passionate about it, but
Speaker 1: she really dug in when she met her future son
Speaker 1: in law and couldn't quite understand him. Like she'd been
Speaker 1: reading Young and realized Young's rough observances on personalities could
Speaker 1: be useful in sorting people, and together with her daughter,
Speaker 1: she added the judging perception letter to the personality scheme
Speaker 1: and it just took off. I mean that's the very
Speaker 1: abridged version. Well, and she was so good about making
Speaker 1: her ideas appealing from the start, Like in the mid
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties, Briggs wrote on an article for the New
Speaker 1: Republic called Meets Yourself using the Personality paint Box, which
Speaker 1: doesn't really sound that much different from What Color is
Speaker 1: Your Parachute? Or other books that would come out in
Speaker 1: later years. Exactly she was like this born Marketer and
Speaker 1: Isabelle too, like she managed to build off of the scheme.
Speaker 1: She used these distinct personality types as characters in a
Speaker 1: detective novel and want a big deal publishing contests, like
Speaker 1: partially based on the idea that different personality types working
Speaker 1: together would be really more efficient and together. They really
Speaker 1: developed this test not just to understand others, but to
Speaker 1: help women find the best and most efficient jobs during
Speaker 1: wartime when men were away. It's pretty amazing, actually, like
Speaker 1: these two educated women were forced into life as housewives,
Speaker 1: and they were determined to do important work and have
Speaker 1: a larger impact on society. But what's interesting is that
Speaker 1: Young didn't love the test. For instance, while he was
Speaker 1: happy for the fangirl attention they gave him, he warned
Speaker 1: Briggs from the get go that it was dangerous to
Speaker 1: use his untested ideas and to apply them to things
Speaker 1: like child rearing or sorting personalities. And he even wrote
Speaker 1: every individual is an exception to the rule. Wow, which
Speaker 1: seems kind of odd, right, Like he wasn't flattered by
Speaker 1: the fact that they were built on his ideas. He
Speaker 1: really wasn't you know, he didn't believe in a pure
Speaker 1: binary of things, like a pure extrovert or a pure introvert,
Speaker 1: even said such a man would be in the lunatic asylum.
Speaker 1: But that didn't stop the Myers Briggs ascendency. By the
Speaker 1: mid twentieth century, the test was so popular it was
Speaker 1: being licensed by the Educational Testing Service Well and today
Speaker 1: it's a behemous so Vox reported that over two million
Speaker 1: people still take the official test annually and that company
Speaker 1: nets over twenty million dollars a year plus. It's basically
Speaker 1: spawned this cottage industry of knockoffs, right like some of
Speaker 1: the which Sex and the City character are you? Or
Speaker 1: which Game of Thrones character are you? There basically reporting
Speaker 1: that you're a Miranda because you're an I N T J,
Speaker 1: or you're a Tyrian Lanister because you're an E N
Speaker 1: T P. But by the way, you're a total Miranda.
Speaker 1: Jay Z and I both take that as a compliment.
Speaker 1: So you're right. The company is extremely healthy, but there
Speaker 1: is petition, and over the years, Myers Briggs has come
Speaker 1: under some criticism for being too sunny like because there
Speaker 1: are no bad types, it might not be accurately reflecting
Speaker 1: your weaknesses or sorting for those Slytherin qualities. As Young
Speaker 1: points out, it gets criticism for being all black and
Speaker 1: white with little gray. If introversion and extra version are
Speaker 1: actually a bell curve, which is what psychiatrists seemed to
Speaker 1: think it is, there's a lot of space in there
Speaker 1: for people to share both qualities, and none of that's
Speaker 1: actually reflected in the results. Well. Also, Myers Briggs is
Speaker 1: frequently cited for inspiring the Barnum effect, which is basically,
Speaker 1: if you say anything vague and complimentary enough, kind of
Speaker 1: like horoscopes, people will think it applies to them. Well,
Speaker 1: not to like pile on them. But one more criticism
Speaker 1: is that it's been called classist in the past. And
Speaker 1: you know, the site the Conversation pointed to some of
Speaker 1: the questions in the test, like do you like to
Speaker 1: chat with clerks, hairdressers, porters, et cetera, which is, and
Speaker 1: I'm quoting the site, a test of introversion extra vision,
Speaker 1: but it rather presumes that the people taking the test
Speaker 1: will not be the one serving, carrying bags or cutting hair. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Now we've spent a good bit of time on this
Speaker 1: episode pointing out the flaws of personality test. Phrenology is
Speaker 1: obviously quackery and something like the mmp I was initially
Speaker 1: created as this mental diagnostic test for specific conditions, which
Speaker 1: made sense, but then it was applied to understand full
Speaker 1: personalities and Myers Briggs is too optimistic and horoscopy at times.
Speaker 1: But back to the original question, why do we use
Speaker 1: personality test and what's the real worth of them? You know,
Speaker 1: we did so much reading on the topic and I
Speaker 1: had the same question. It's funny. Malcolm Gladwell had this
Speaker 1: old great piece where he was talking about the ineptness
Speaker 1: of personality tests and he came up with his own
Speaker 1: binary test to analyze people. Oh yeah, I know, I
Speaker 1: saw this. So he made up his own version of
Speaker 1: the Myers Briggs with categories like are you a gobbler
Speaker 1: or a nibbler of information? Are you more of a
Speaker 1: canine or a feline in a relationship? Which I love
Speaker 1: because like do you meet your partner at the door
Speaker 1: with a wagging tail? Or do you fly hard to
Speaker 1: get in? Are you all moody? So I get Gladwell's
Speaker 1: point about the ridiculousness is of this, but think about
Speaker 1: that Walt Whitman example. I mean his personality test, however fraudulent,
Speaker 1: it might have been convinced one of America's greatest poets
Speaker 1: to follow his passion. And if you're getting a sunny
Speaker 1: diagnosis that encourages you to believe you're great and that
Speaker 1: you can do great things and that there's a place
Speaker 1: for you in this big, confusing world, there's worth in that, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like the original it gets better campaign. Well, definitely.
Speaker 1: I mean, on the other hand, you wouldn't want someone
Speaker 1: boxed into a professional or emotional corner, right, Like your
Speaker 1: friend you were talking about that went to an Indian astrologer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he sent his chart off and he's this brilliant PhD
Speaker 1: computer scientist, and the astrologer studied his times and came
Speaker 1: back and told him his only viable option in life
Speaker 1: was to be a farmer. But speaking of these tests,
Speaker 1: I called up a PhD Bindu methic column whose assistant
Speaker 1: director of Clinical Training at Chestnut Hill College, and I
Speaker 1: asked her about the worth of personality tests in the
Speaker 1: studies personality, and specifically she studies perfectionism. But when I
Speaker 1: asked her about the popularity of the tests and the
Speaker 1: potential for misuse. I was just kind of expecting her
Speaker 1: to validate what we're saying and say they're all hocum.
Speaker 1: But here's been the talking on the subject. Looking at
Speaker 1: personality and psychology, you're looking at the individual differences of
Speaker 1: a person UM. So if you think about even the
Speaker 1: origins of what personality means, you know comes from persona,
Speaker 1: which in Latin means masks, right, and so you're not
Speaker 1: just looking at what the person where the individuals showing
Speaker 1: other people, but what's underneath, right? What what doesn't get shown? UM?
Speaker 1: And so it's more complex and it's influenced by a
Speaker 1: variety of different factors. So you know, for example, childhood experiences,
Speaker 1: family system, culture, socio political climate, UM. All these factors
Speaker 1: can influence one's personality. And personality tests are used UM
Speaker 1: to get more information about the individual to help with
Speaker 1: maybe treatment goals, maybe to clarify a particular question or
Speaker 1: an issue so you can see what will be helpful
Speaker 1: for the person in treatment. UM. It is a part
Speaker 1: of what is used to get more thorough holistic look
Speaker 1: at the person UM and it's you know used, Uh,
Speaker 1: these tests have been normed and validated. You don't want
Speaker 1: to just take it and think that that is the
Speaker 1: end result. Right. You want to use it in conjunction
Speaker 1: with therapy, or you want to use it in conjunction
Speaker 1: with maybe other tasks to give you a broader sense
Speaker 1: of what's happening. Right, And if you take it, you know,
Speaker 1: during one point in your life, you might have different
Speaker 1: experiences the versus you know, another time in your life.
Speaker 1: I know personally, you know my training and my experience.
Speaker 1: UM I've used uh the Myers Briggs and m M
Speaker 1: p I um you know, for for example, I think
Speaker 1: the Myers Briggs has used a lot in career counseling. Um.
Speaker 1: If so it's used to as as one way to
Speaker 1: think about what might be a good career fit for
Speaker 1: an individual. And UM, I know it's used a lot
Speaker 1: now in schools to help of you know, students decide
Speaker 1: on majors and what, you know, what might be a
Speaker 1: good fit for them in terms of uh course of
Speaker 1: study for them. Well that's really interesting. So we've been
Speaker 1: talking about it like personality tests are comprehensive, but really
Speaker 1: they're just one tool and an arsenal exactly like we
Speaker 1: as humans in this golden age of convenience, Like we
Speaker 1: want a quick, one test life hack for complete understanding
Speaker 1: of ourselves. And it would be great if there was
Speaker 1: a marshmallow that could tell us if and how we
Speaker 1: were going to be successful. But I think part of
Speaker 1: the danger is trying to take these things too seriously
Speaker 1: on your own, Like it's almost like self diagnosing yourself
Speaker 1: on web m D. You might have some success rate,
Speaker 1: but it's better to visit someone who looks at this
Speaker 1: for a profession. And obviously these tests are also evolving
Speaker 1: and have evolved over the years, right I mean, And
Speaker 1: there are newer tests to like the ones that measure
Speaker 1: for the five personality types, which supposedly give you more
Speaker 1: of an honest analysis of your traits and may even
Speaker 1: evolve to a test on a sixth trade, which, according
Speaker 1: to new scientists, will shed light on how much of
Speaker 1: a schemer you are and how machiavellian your personality is
Speaker 1: a Slytherin scale, And of course, like Walter Michelle was saying,
Speaker 1: your personality has room to change. According to New scientists,
Speaker 1: one US study showed that divorce can make women more
Speaker 1: extroverted and open to new experiences, and big life changes
Speaker 1: aren't the only thing. Like exposure to just four to
Speaker 1: eight weeks of psychotherapy has been shown to decrease neuroticism
Speaker 1: and increase extra version. That said, I know now we
Speaker 1: shouldn't be reading too much into these personality tests without
Speaker 1: the help of a professional, but I do think there's
Speaker 1: one thing we can manage safely on our own, the
Speaker 1: part time genius fact off. Yeah yeah, all right, Well
Speaker 1: here's one to kick this off. One of the most
Speaker 1: curious psychology tests, the rorschak, actually has a surprisingly strange origin.
Speaker 1: Before it was used as a psychiatric evaluation tool, it
Speaker 1: was a parlor game used for people's amusement. In fact,
Speaker 1: it predates the roar shock by about a hundred years.
Speaker 1: And get this, the ink blots were used for fortune
Speaker 1: telling and to inspire menacing poetry. So, speaking of rorshok,
Speaker 1: did you know that after World War two, two American
Speaker 1: psychologists got access to prominent Nazis like Rudolf Hess and
Speaker 1: Hermann Goring actually in their cells in Nuremberg, and when
Speaker 1: they showed ink blots to them, the Nazis obliged with
Speaker 1: these incredibly vivid responses. In one in plot, Hess saw
Speaker 1: quote two men talking about a crime with blood on
Speaker 1: their mind. God Another prisoner claimed that he saw a
Speaker 1: bear with teeth and legs and shadows, which represents Bullshevism
Speaker 1: overrunning Europe. Like, that's so specific. And of course these
Speaker 1: answers probably gave the roor Shock more credence than it
Speaker 1: deserved in deciphering people's traits and their tendencies. And some
Speaker 1: psychologists actually refer to the test as Dracula because no
Speaker 1: one's been able to drive a stake through the curse
Speaker 1: thing's heart. That's pretty crazy. So all right, so here's
Speaker 1: one you might remember from the mental Flaws days, but
Speaker 1: I'd completely forgotten about it. Did you know that from
Speaker 1: the forties to the sixties, at most ivy League schools
Speaker 1: and top tier colleges, freshmen were required to pose naked
Speaker 1: their nude portraits somewhere of people like George Bush and
Speaker 1: Diane Sawyer because the psychologist named William Herbert Sheldon believed
Speaker 1: you could decipher a person's intelligence and potential success based
Speaker 1: on their body types. The Nine Life did a cover
Speaker 1: story on the project, and the tobacco industry use the
Speaker 1: pictures to study men and masculinity. Okay, so one last
Speaker 1: Roar Shock fact, because I can't help myself. As Annie
Speaker 1: Murphy Paul points out, when psychologists asked what might this be,
Speaker 1: the only truly logical answer is an ink plot, But
Speaker 1: according to her, generally only severely mentally ill people give it.
Speaker 1: All right, here's what I think you'll like. While classical
Speaker 1: music and heavy metals seem completely dissimilar, according to Adrian North,
Speaker 1: the professor in Edinburgh, the psychological profiles of people who
Speaker 1: listen to classical or heavy metal are almost identical. Obviously
Speaker 1: they tend to be for different age groups, but partially
Speaker 1: it's about the music itself. Both are very grand and
Speaker 1: emotionally dramatic, and also take a certain amount of mental
Speaker 1: openness to embrace and appreciate. That's crazy and so good.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna give you this round. And I really
Speaker 1: hope no one's analyzing my personality based on my Spotify
Speaker 1: playlist because my kids have run wild with that thing.
Speaker 1: So you know, we haven't given anyone a part time
Speaker 1: genius award this episode. All right. Well, I've actually been
Speaker 1: thinking about this one, and I think we should give
Speaker 1: it to Walter the marshmallow Man. Michelle, Oh, I actually
Speaker 1: love that. I've been talking badly about his marshmallow experiment
Speaker 1: forever and to realize that his test actually embraces the
Speaker 1: idea that people can learn and change like that totally
Speaker 1: made my day wonderful. All right, well, Walter, you'll be
Speaker 1: added to our official Hall of Genius and we'll be
Speaker 1: sending you a certificate in the mail, and if you
Speaker 1: wait two weeks to open it, maybe we'll send you
Speaker 1: another one. That's it for today's show. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening. You know what's amazing to look at is
Speaker 1: how people analyze handwriting for personality. Apparently, if you place
Speaker 1: the dot on your eyes too high, you're too Optimus
Speaker 1: one to watch out for that. Thanks again for listening.
Speaker 1: Part Time Genius is a production of how stuff works
Speaker 1: and wouldn't be possible without several brilliant people who do
Speaker 1: the important things we couldn't even again to understand. Christa
Speaker 1: McNeil does the editing thing. Noel Brown made the theme
Speaker 1: song and does the mixy mixy sound thing. Gary Rowland
Speaker 1: does the exact producer thing. Gay Bluesier is our lead researcher,
Speaker 1: with support from the Research Army including Austin Thompson, Nolan
Speaker 1: Brown and Lucas Adams and he's Jeff Coo gets the
Speaker 1: show to your ears. Good job, Eves. If you like
Speaker 1: what you heard, we hope you'll subscribe. And if you
Speaker 1: really really like what you've heard, maybe you could leave
Speaker 1: a good review for us. Do we do we forget Jason?
Speaker 1: Jason who