A Florida woman makes three 911 emergency calls to report that her local McDonald’s ran out of McNuggets. We call her “a frivolous waste of taxpayer money.”

A Washington man argues for a national boycott or lawsuit because Wendy’s charges 70 cents more to upgrade a double cheeseburger to a combo meal than to upgrade a fish sandwich to a combo meal. We call him “a loser with nothing better to do.”

A South Korean couple spends 10 hours a day at an internet cafe raising a virtual child, while their real baby starves to death at 5.5 pounds. We call them “criminally negligent.”

Yes, it’s very easy to judge them. But are these people really any different from us?

I know you want to say yes (I sure do), but what exactly makes them different from you? If you had been given the same genes and the same experiences, wouldn’t you have made the same decisions? If nature and nurture are the same, what else can be different?

Effort seems to be a big factor in how we judge others. We expect them to exercise discretion in matters we think they should be able to control, while giving them a pass on things they can’t help. Which of these judgments do you agree with?

• “It’s not his fault he’s epileptic; we can’t blame him for striking someone during a seizure.”
• “It’s not his fault he’s ugly; we can’t blame him for looking like that.”
• “It’s not his fault he’s weak; we can’t blame him for not being able to lift much weight.”
• “It’s not his fault he’s crabby; we can’t blame him for not smiling much.”
• “It’s not his fault he’s addicted to food; we can’t blame him for overeating.”
• “It’s not his fault he’s stupid; we can’t blame him for thinking you can take fireworks on a plane.”
• “It’s not his fault he’s lazy; we can’t blame him for sitting back and doing nothing.”
• “It’s not his fault he’s evil; we can’t blame him for being a serial killer.”

But who decides what we should be able to control? Maybe it’s naturally easy for one person to be friendly, another person to be honest, and another person to be brave. How much credit can you get for just doing what comes naturally?

Calvin (Hobbes’ six-year-old buddy) said that Santa’s naughty and nice list is unfair, because Santa doesn’t judge people on a curve. Susie likes performing good deeds, but Calvin hates them, so he has to work a lot harder. Shouldn’t one of his good deeds count as much as ten of hers?

Do you judge people by their house, their car, their clothes, their job, their looks, their intelligence, their personality, their friends, their family, or anything else? Of course you do. We all do. But why?

Photo by Sudhamshu

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

In my post Bomb Threats And You: Temperaments In Action, I wrote about the four personality temperaments. The temperaments are now part of the modern Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, but they date back to at least 590 B.C.

Akemi Gaines at Real Life Spirituality left a comment on that post, bringing up a number of points I wanted to respond to. Now a year and three months later, I figure it’s about time I did! All quotes are from Akemi’s comment.

“All these personality analysis are based on the respondents’ answers, in other words, their own perception of their preferences and choices. This automatically sets limits…is my own observation correct?”

The MBTI and most personality profilers are based on the individual’s self-assessment. And while that makes perfect sense in some ways, it also makes it easy to intentionally or unintentionally bias the results. If you want to be a certain type, or you think you know the “right” answer, or you wish a particular trait applied to you, it’s easy to be less than honest with yourself (possibly subconsciously).

Last month I wrote about a career test based on color preferences. While I wasn’t much of a fan of that test, I like how it’s hard to influence. If you like green, and you have no idea whether that’s “good” or “bad,” you might as well say you like green.

But if the person is capable of steering the results towards what they want, I think we just have to accept that as a limitation of the testing methodology. The best defense is to be careful to answer the questions accurately, knowing that there are no right or wrong answers.

“For instance, if I choose going out with friends rather than staying home as my preferred way of spending spare time, wouldn’t I know already I’m extroverted? Do I need the test to tell me?”

Probably not. Most people already know whether they’re an introvert or an extravert, because these are terms they’ve been hearing for years. However, it’s very unlikely that they really understand what they mean, particularly introverts (hence, the need for The Introverts Strike Back and Introverts And Extraverts: Can’t We Just Get Along?).

Also, there are people who are somewhat borderline, who might need a test to tell them what they are. There have been many I vs. E debates over Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and Adolf Hitler, for example.

Finally, while the average person may already know whether they’re an introvert or extravert, they don’t know a thing about sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, or judging/perceiving.

“In reality, I spend the majority of my time alone at home, and my answer may be based on my perception of what I do in my spare time — those occasional special time I go out. So am I really E?”

When someone came to my workplace to administer the MBTI, she went over the types of our company’s two founders. She surprised some people by telling us that our extremely chatty CTO was an I. She explained that although he talked a lot, you have to pay attention to what he was talking about – generally software, never himself.

In the same way, there are surely explanations for an extravert who spends most of their time alone at home, but let’s not put Akemi under the microscope.

“Another problem of these analysis is they force us to think in either-or way. For instance, MBTI puts you either sensing or intuitive. But really? This may be helpful for someone who is close to 100% of either way (I’m 100% intuitive. I hardly see the “practical” side of reality) but what if someone is, say, 60% intuitive and 40% sensing?”

I think this is one of the most valid criticisms of the MBTI. If you think of the S-N scale as a continuum from 0% N to 100% N, it follows a normal distribution, or a bell-shaped curve. A few people are close to 0% N, a few people are close to 100% N, but most people are clustered around 50% N. So then why are we polarizing everyone, when most people are near the middle?

I don’t have a good explanation, but the theory is that your absolute position on the scale matters less than the side of the middle on which you lie. Meaning that a 45% N might be more similar to a 20% N (far, but same side of the middle) than they are to a 55% N (close, but on the other side).

This doesn’t make much sense, but it actually seems to hold up pretty well. I’m not an extreme T and I’m probably only a moderate N, but I definitely connect with these sides far more than their opposites.

“In this case [60% intuitive and 40% sensing], I think it would be more helpful to say, “You are very intuitive and conceptual, but you are also very capable in paying attention to details””

Yes, people should be aware of different sides of their personality. If a detailed customized report is available, it should explain this. If only general descriptions of each type are available, the person should read about similar types. And if they can take the MBTI step 2, this breaks down each letter pair into 5 facets, to show their preferences in much more detail.

“In my case, judgmental and perceptive is almost the same amount. If you check ENFJ, you may agree it’s Akemi.” [She identified herself as an ENFP]

Yes, I can see that. ENFJ’s are “the great communicators.” I’m very split on J/P too, and if you check INTJ (“the masterminds”), you may agree that it’s me [but I'm really an INTP]. (BTW, be careful to use the words judging and perceiving rather than judgmental and perceptive – many people use them interchangeably, but they have different meanings.)

Being split on a letter does happen sometimes. I spoke to a career coach who had a client that was split right down the middle on all four letters – and very confused about what career path to follow!

Thanks for the great comment, Akemi, and sorry for the delay in responding! Anyone wanting to learn more about their own personality is invited to read my ebook The Personality Puzzle.

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

“You cannot do anything to make America not like you. You’re one of those people…[like] Charlie Sheen…I always kid him. I say ‘You could beat a nun to death in a pile of dead puppies’ and America would just go, ‘Oh that Charlie, we love him, he’s hysterical!’…and you’re the same way.”

- Bill Maher to Brad Pitt

Yesterday’s post How To Ruin Your Reputation Instantly And Permanently was about how easy it is to shatter your reputation by acting unethically for a short term gain. In the comments, Chad at Sentient Money said:

“True, but reputation is secondary to making money. If you can make money for someone else they will hire you even if you are a baby killer…sure there are companies who won’t hire ‘baby killers who make money,’ but there are tons that will. Just ask Goldman Sachs, GE, Morgan Stanley, Citi, virtually any of the oil companies and large international construction firms, the Fed, etc.”

While I’m not exactly thrilled that this is true, it definitely is. And that got me thinking about why people vary so much in their ability to get away with things. Of course, money is one way to get a free pass.

I’m normally not a fan of ruining someone’s career just because they slipped up and said something they shouldn’t have, but John Rocker would be an exception. It would be hard to come up with something more racist, homophobic, and sexist than what he said about New York in 2000.

But when people speculated about whether it would ruin his career, a common thought was “Yeah, but he still throws the ball at 95 miles per hour.” Translation: he makes money, so he’s untouchable.

His career did fall apart, but only because his pitching performance declined, not because of what he said. (BTW, I haven’t closely followed many of the stories referenced in this post, so correct me if I’m wrong on anything.)

If John Rocker is someone who got off too easy, Tiger Woods is someone who’s taking far more heat than he deserves. Yeah, affairs are bad, I get that. But I haven’t heard a decent explanation as to why what Tiger did is so much worse than what David Letterman did.

What is so different in Tiger’s case? Is it the number of affairs? Is it because he has more money and therefore more responsibility? Is it because his image was a bit more squeaky clean?

The main reason I’m hearing is that Letterman apologized before the public found out. But what difference does that make? He only did it because he had been caught and knew the truth was coming out whether he liked it or not.

Do you really feel that Tiger Woods owes you an apology? His wife certainly, but why is it any of our business? (I just learned that he’s issuing an apology later today, though I doubt it will change anything.)

Chad also said, “In 2 years no one will care that Tiger Woods got caught having a massive number of affairs. He will get back all his sponsors and more.” Yes, I believe so, assuming that his performance doesn’t tank from staying out of the game too long, losing focus, etc. But today, why is it such a huge controversy compared to some much worse offenses?

Mike Tyson was convicted of rape and no one really cared. In fact, his first fight out of prison set a pay-per-view record of $63 million. And his career wasn’t ruined by biting off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear, assaulting two people in a road rage attack, throwing punches after the bell, knocking down a referee, failing one drug test and refusing to take another, racking up more sexual assault accusations, or saying he wanted to eat Lennox Lewis’ children. Nope, his career ended only when his performance declined.

But it’s not just money making ability that gives someone immunity. There’s something else, though I’m not sure what. Why can Brad Pitt and Charlie Sheen do no wrong, while other people of similar stature pay dearly for offenses that should be within the bounds of forgiveness?

John Kerry’s 2008 presidential hopes were dashed when he waited too long to apologize for a botched joke. Seriously? Why is that even an issue?

On the other hand, George W. Bush got re-elected after, in some peoples’ minds, bombing the World Trade Center. (No, I don’t think he deserves any blame for the 9/11 attacks, but a lot of people think it was his fault for ignoring the threat and allowing it to happen, and some people actually think he planned it…people like Charlie Sheen.)

Shock jock Don Imus found that your immunity can wear off. He was fired for his infamous “nappy headed hos” comment, despite apologizing immediately. Yeah, it’s offensive, and I’m certainly not a fan of his, but that comment was consistent with the material that won him honors such as a place in Talkers magazine’s 25 greatest radio talk show hosts of all time. So why did the line suddenly move for him? He’s said some things that were far worse, without much consequence.

Does anyone really expect Simon Cowell to apologize to everyone he’s judged?

Anyway, if anyone knows what the rules are, let me know.

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

I was busy thinking about the trip, so I didn’t notice there was a small delay. Nor did I notice when the small delay became a big delay. Not until someone got on the PA system and said “If you’re wondering why we’re not moving, we’re having some trouble locating the captain.”

Eventually they sent us back to the gate, and shortly afterwards they cancelled the flight. They didn’t say why, but after I finally got there on the next flight, I found out what had happened: the captain just decided to quit his job right before takeoff.

This guy did some serious damage to the airline. I don’t know what the situation was, and maybe he can get away with it. Maybe he isn’t getting a pension anyway, maybe he’s safe from legal action, and maybe he doesn’t need to work for anyone else ever again. Maybe.

But all too often, people find that the world is smaller than we realize, we need each other more than we think, and you only get to betray someone once.

I’ve heard trust described as a bank account. When you say you’ll do something and then follow through, you’ve made a deposit to the trust account. When your balance is high enough, you can make withdrawals by asking for favors, and you can afford penalties when you slip up now and then. But once you try to rob the bank, it’s never the same again.

I know a system administrator who responded to getting laid off by deleting all the data on a server, causing what he thought would be about $1 million in damages. The company ended up not needing what was on the server, but why do people do things like that? Actions have consequences. For God’s sake, you can hire a hitman for just a few dollars.

I recently tried to collect payment for some freelancing work from a freeloading client. First they pretended they had paid me, then they pretended to be “researching the problem,” and now they’ve broken off all contact. OK, they win on the money front, but to save a few bucks they branded themselves as deadbeats. Not a good tradeoff.

You can survive divorce, bankruptcy, and cancer, and possibly even come out of it stronger than ever. But once you sacrifice your reputation, it’s really hard to recover. And sometimes you only get one chance.

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

Like many kids, I always considered Christmas the best time of the year. And also like many kids, I always wanted to meet Santa Claus.

Not the Santa you see at the mall. I mean the real Santa. Kris Kringle, Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, whatever you call him – but the real guy, not one of his helpers.

I knew exactly where and when he was coming (down the chimney on Christmas), so it should have been easy to meet him. But there was a problem. Santa won’t come unless you’re asleep. So if I stayed up to see him, he wouldn’t come (apparently, this derives from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

Fortunately, I had a solution. One year, in addition to the usual milk and cookies, I left out a Polaroid camera, with a note instructing Santa to take a picture of himself. It wouldn’t be quite the same as meeting him in person, but an authentic picture was certainly nothing to sneeze at. Best of all, it circumvented the “Santa won’t come unless you’re asleep” rule.

Christmas morning, I came running down to see my picture of the real Santa. Only there wasn’t one. Santa had neglected to do it. As I stood there wondering why he hadn’t grasped the concept, I could only think that I must not have been clear enough with my wording. Maybe his native language was Dutch or Polish or something.

So the next year, I left out the camera along with a foolproof, airtight note that left absolutely no possibility for ambiguity. I had him now! But the next day, there was no picture to be found. I couldn’t understand why that idiot Santa had difficulty following such simple instructions.

But time went on and I became a little wiser. Eventually I realized that we can only understand people when we put ourselves in their shoes, and a simple change in perspective sometimes makes all the difference.

Photo by kevindooley

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

Home Depot

Home Depot’s slogan is “You can do it. We can help.” That means it’s mostly for do-it-yourself types, with relatively little service.

And I didn’t need much service the other day, I just needed to find out where the furnace filters were. This is a really big place, and they could be anywhere.

As I was looking around, I came across someone who worked there. “Where are the furnace filters?” “Aisle 32.” Done. That was all I needed in that case.

Banana Republic

Banana Republic’s slogan appears to be “Suffocating the customer with unwanted attention.” They really do a good job of living up to that.

I had a 40% off coupon (go recession!), and I needed some pants. As soon as I walked in the door, I made sure to avoid eye contact with anyone. It didn’t work. (It never does.)

Someone came up to me and asked if I needed help. I said no. She told me her name in case I needed anything. Somehow I knew she’d be back whether I needed anything or not.

As I tried to remember what kinds of pants I already had and think about what I should get, she came back to ask if I needed any help. Yes, I needed her to help me by not talking to me when I was trying to think. I got her to leave, but not before she took my stuff and went to get a dressing room. Um, did I ask for one?

Then when I wanted a dressing room I couldn’t find her. I tracked her down and she gave me back my stuff, saying that I could come get her if I needed her opinion on how the pants looked. Oh good, because my goal was to impress this annoying person I’d never see again.

How much help to give?

There are two different strategies at work here. Home Depot employees wait for you to come to them, if you can find them. Banana Republic employees pounce on you and don’t take their fangs out until they ring you up. Home Depot doesn’t need to hire as many people, but Banana Republic makes sure customers buy everything they can.

What’s the right amount of help to give? I think it’s however much the customer wants. Maybe in some cases it makes sense to compensate salespeople based on the customer’s rating, instead of by how much they sell. It’s possible to sell a lot but also make people want to avoid you in the future.

Best Buy

I’ve got one more story. Not exactly on topic, but close enough.

When I went to Best Buy the other day to get a new laptop, I wanted to get some advice. No salespeople were available, so I just looked around. I overheard one employee talking about laptops, and I could tell he really knew what he was doing. I knew some Best Buy employees had the ability to turn sugar into sh**, so I decided I’d wait for this guy instead of looking for the first available person.

The people he was helping were really slow, having many concerns such as whether the laptop case made enough of a fashion statement. I got impatient, but at last he was swiping their credit card and about to finish up. Right then, another salesperson, a teenage girl, came up to me and asked if I needed anything.

I figured that since this was a major purchase, I’d rather just wait another minute for the guy who was knowledgeable, instead of taking my chances with this random person. (My old boss used to say “Just because you have a tie doesn’t mean you’re smart.” At Best Buy, the saying would be “Just because you have a blue shirt doesn’t mean you’re smart.” It also doesn’t mean they’re not smart. We just don’t know.)

So I said I didn’t need anything. The guy I was waiting for heard this and asked again to confirm that I didn’t need anything. I said I’d wait for him.

But when I thought he was finished, he started walking away to do something else for the slow customers. He asked if I had a quick question. I said I needed advice on laptops. He said “Actually, this guy over here knows more about laptops than I do.”

I was a little annoyed that I didn’t get him after all that, but whatever, another knowledgeable person would be fine. So I went up to the other guy, who asked “What did he say about me?” I said “That you know a lot about laptops.” He said “Yes, but I’m not on sales duty right now. Let me find somebody else to help you.”

So he started walking away, and after a few seconds I saw him walking up to the teenage girl I had turned away before. No, not her! She’s going to think I rejected her help because of age or sex discrimination!

I assume that’s what she thought, because she flipped out. From 50 feet away, I heard her shout “He told me he didn’t need any help!” I walked over there and said “I just said I’d wait for that guy because I overheard him talking about laptops, I could tell he was knowledgeable, and he was almost done with those people. If there’s someone else who knows a lot about laptops, that’s fine. Who would that be?”

It ended up being a different person, who was a perfect salesperson, knowing the answers to all my questions and telling me just what I needed to hear. This would fall between the Home Depot and Banana Republic cases, and it’s the best one from the customer’s perspective.

On another note, does Hallmark have any cards saying “Sorry about the age and sex discrimination misunderstanding?”

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

What makes people fall in love? Biological anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher has spent her life studying this question. She’s the author of Why Him? Why Her?: Finding Real Love By Understanding Your Personality Type.

Despite the saying that “opposites attract,” Helen Fisher says (and we all know) that people tend to seek out mates who are similar to them in many ways:

“Psychologists have determined that men and women tend to fall in love with individuals from the same ethnic and socioeconomic background; with those of a similar level of intelligence, education and physical attractiveness; with individuals holding similar religious, political and social values; and with those who have a similar sense of humor.”

But beyond these factors, matchmaking involves a huge element of personality. Is there any rhyme or reason to what personalities we find attractive?

Geneticists have been able to map many traits to our DNA, and Helen Fisher says they’ve learned that our genes act together to create behavior syndromes.

“For example, if you have a biological appetite to seek novelty, you are also likely to be energetic, spontaneous, risk taking, curious and creative. If you are predisposed to be traditional instead, you are also likely to be loyal, cautious, respectful of authority and eager to make plans and follow schedules. We express constellations of related biological traits, creating what are commonly called personality types.

…

In fact, after doing extensive research on the biological underpinnings of personality types, I have come to believe that each of us expresses a unique mix of four broad basic personality types. Moreover, our primary personality type steers us toward specific romantic partners. Our biological nature whispers constantly within us to influence who we love.”

These four broad personality types are associated with four specific neurotransmitters and hormones: dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen.

I haven’t read the book, and I’m not entirely clear on how this works. I know that both men and women have both testosterone and estrogen, but don’t men always have more testosterone, while women always have more estrogen? She talks about inheriting particular genes in the various hormone systems, so I guess it’s not necessarily that people have more of these neurotransmitters and hormones, just that they have genes that cause them to be more heavily influenced by them. Therefore, the personalities associated with testosterone and estrogen can be found in both men and women.

Anyway, she says we’re all a unique combination of the four types, which she calls the explorer (risk-taking, associated with dopamine), the builder (calm, traditional, associated with serotonin), the director (analytical, tough-minded and decisive, associated with testosterone) and the negotiator (emotionally expressive and empathetic, associated with estrogen).

Although she didn’t say one word about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in the articles I read, I noticed a striking (though not perfect) correlation between these types and the MBTI temperaments. Below we see the types, the associated neurotransmitter or hormone, the associated temperament (in my opinion), and the corresponding traits.

So which types attract each other? Fisher says that explorers go for other explorers, and builders go for other builders. But directors go for negotiators, and vice versa.

For now, I’m not convinced about this. I’ve always considered the MBTI to be useless for selecting jobs or partners. It’s great for understanding people, but not for filtering them. So if these four types can be mapped to Myers-Briggs types, my instinct is that they wouldn’t be good relationship predictors.

Then again, I haven’t spent a lifetime studying it. Maybe there’s something to this.

Dr. Fisher admits that types aren’t everything. She observed a “test date” between two explorers, who should be a good match based on type. But he says he’s into sports, while she calls herself a cultural woman. Having the right type isn’t enough unless the people have common interests, or at least a willingness to learn about each other’s interests.

Enough talk. Let’s find out what you are.

WhyHimWhyHer.com redirects to the test at chemistry.com (a sister site of match.com). Allow about 15 minutes for this. It’s a bit of a pain to get started, but worth it.

You have to create a username and password, but since you don’t ever need to log in again, you can just use random letters. I was going to say you can use Mailinator to get a throwaway email address, but the test gives you the results right there in the web page, so you can just make up a fake email.

The test is pretty interesting. The very first question is the only one about physical attributes. Specifically, the relative lengths of your index and ring fingers. I guess this is influenced by the neurotransmitters and hormones in question.

There are two items about visual perception, where you have to make one thing bigger or smaller until it’s the same size as another thing. The rest of the questions are normal personality questions.

I expected that the test would find me to be a director, and I was right. But it determines both a primary and a secondary type. I was a director (testosterone) for the primary, and a negotiator (estrogen) for the secondary. I don’t know if I’m thrilled about my secondary type being associated with estrogen, but the description does match me partially.

Do you think Dr. Helen Fisher is right? Do you think explorers are best matched with explorers, builders are best matched with builders, and directors are best matched with negotiators? If you’re married and willing to share what types you think you and your spouse are, that could be interesting.

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

Are rules just arbitrary hoops to jump through, meant only to demonstrate power and mete out punishment? Or are they necessary to prevent everything from slipping into anarchy and chaos?

Here’s one more post on this line of thought from Darkworker Supervisors Want Doctor’s Notes.

When rules are necessary

I’m really not “anti-rule” per se. I think that sometimes it’s essential to have very strict rules with no exceptions. A great example is anything about security.

Back when they were putting the post-9/11 security measures in place, a lot of objects that used to be perfectly fine on a plane were no longer allowed. There was even a pilot–not a passenger, but a pilot–who was stopped from bringing a fairly harmless item on board.

I don’t remember what the forbidden item was, but let’s say nail clippers. The pilot thought it was crazy that nail clippers were considered too dangerous, when there was an axe in the cockpit. Let’s just use some common sense. Shouldn’t they have let the pilot on board with the nail clippers?

Actually, no, they shouldn’t. In this particular case, the rule seemed pointless. But the problem is that once you start allowing people to bend the rules according to their judgment, you’re opening the floodgates for security breaches.

I worked at a company where we had to pick a password that contained a mix of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, and numbers. It couldn’t be based on a dictionary word, it couldn’t be one we’d used before, and we had to change it very frequently. They wanted our passwords to be almost impossible to crack.

But do you know what the biggest cause of compromised passwords was? People were simply revealing their passwords when a stranger called them and asked nicely.

“Hey, this is Bob from tech support. We’re working on the network and trying to fix a problem that’s making everything run slower than normal – maybe you’ve noticed that. Can we take a look at your account real quick? What’s your password?”

And people were giving their passwords away like this. Yeah, it sounds like an obvious scam when you think about it, but many people would fall for it. It’s called the rule of authority: if someone seems like an authority, people won’t question them. That link points to Dean Rieck’s post about a TV reporter who staged a bank scam as an experiment, fooling 10 out of 10 customers, just by looking authoritative.

So if you’re a security guard, and a pilot wants to bring his nail clippers on board, you have to stop them. What if they’re not really the pilot? Maybe they just stole an ID card and managed to get someplace they’re not supposed to be. Maybe they’re going to leave the nail clippers for their friend to pick up, while they go for the axe. You need to do your job by serving as an additional safeguard. Besides, if you make one exception, it’s easier to make the next one. You only have to be wrong once for disaster to strike.

Photo by zzellers

When rules get in the way

On the other hand, many rules aren’t so necessary. In Darkworker Supervisors Want Doctor’s Notes, I talked about a supervisor who made up a pointless rule to enforce. They wanted an employee with ongoing health problems to provide two doctor’s notes per visit: one confirming that the appointment was made, and one confirming that the appointment was attended.

This wasn’t the company’s rule, but something the supervisor made up because they thought it was a good idea. It wasn’t. Even human resources didn’t understand the need.

Was it a doable request? Sure. Getting doctor’s notes isn’t hard. The problem is that it’s creating a needless hoop to jump through, while conveying a lack of trust.

But wait–without this rule, wouldn’t people abuse the system? Yes, some people might. Some people just want to coast through their job, doing the bare minimum not to get fired. Maybe they’d get a kick out of scheduling doctor’s appointments and not showing up, just to get out of work.

But why not address the problem directly? Why not fire the useless employees, instead of trying to control everyone with excessive rules?

I used to work at a company that had a clearly stated internet policy. Brief personal use of the internet was allowed, but you should make it quick and then get back to work. Fine. That’s how it should be, right?

Then one day they decided that some people were spending too much time on the internet, so they were thinking about disabling internet access for everyone. I thought that was a terrible idea.

First, it would have repercussions. People who used to spend five minutes a day scanning the news would instead be spending four hours a day bitching about how they had no internet access.

Second, it wouldn’t fix the problem. People who used to waste time on the internet would simply find a different way to waste time.

Instead of imposing this rule on everyone, why not tackle the problem directly? If someone’s spending a lot of time on the internet, why is that? If they don’t have enough work to do, then find out where they can help out. If they just don’t want to work, then fire them. This is not complicated.

Just today I spoke to someone who joined a company as VP a few months ago. He said one of the first things he did was get rid of the obvious underperforming employees. OK, that’s a good thing, but why were they there in the first place?

I worked at a company where I wasn’t allowed to remap my keyboard to the Dvorak layout (a more efficient alternative to QWERTY that greatly reduces hand strain). I had to actually get a doctor’s note saying it was medically necessary before they let me do it. So I eventually got around it, but it was a pointless hoop to jump through. Why would they make up a rule just to slow me down and give me carpal tunnel syndrome?

I worked at a company where someone got in trouble for installing Firefox, which was not the company’s “official browser.” Why did they care what browser he used? But anyway, if it was that important to them, they could have just asked him to uninstall it. Instead, they removed his adminstrative rights. That kept him from installing Firefox, but it also kept him from installing the applications his job specifically required. He couldn’t even set his clock to the right time.

And then there’s the whole ROWE vs. TOWE thing.

Of course, everyone needs to put up with some rules. But some rules are helpful, and some aren’t. Companies need to stop valuing compliance with pointless rules over performance. They also need to stop paying people who do nothing but slow their employees down. Companies make money by getting stuff done, not by following rules.

When rules appear to be pointless, but aren’t

I worked at a company where people weren’t allowed to install anything on their computer without getting it cleared by network support first. Some people thought this rule wasn’t important, and they decided to go ahead and install whatever they wanted.

But the rule was there for a good reason. A lot of the programs people were installing were introducing viruses into the network. And then network support had to waste a lot of time cleaning up this problem that shouldn’t have been there in the first place, if people had just followed the rules.

So what did the company do? They sent out periodic emails to everyone. These emails reminded people about the rule, but more importantly, explained why the rule was necessary.

Instead of treating people like children and saying “You’re going to do this because I said so,” it came off more like “This causes a lot of extra work for us, so we’re counting on you to help us out by simply asking before you install anything.”

If you need to start a rule, (1) make sure it does more good than harm, and (2) explain to people why it’s necessary, and get them on board with it. I see a lot of people in power failing at both of these.

Hunter Recommends:
Greatness Without Genies: The Law of Attraction for Realists
How to Be Rich And Happy: Whatever You Want, Whenever You Want
How to Finally Find What You Love to Do And Get Paid For Doing It

But first, a trip back in time. For thousands of years, there have been ways of classifying personality types into four different temperaments. And while these temperaments have had different names over the years, they’ve described roughly the same behavior.

In 590 BC, Ezekiel called them ox (sturdy), lion (bold), eagle (far-seeing), and man (humane).

In 400 BC, Hippocrates called them somber (black bile), cheerful (blood), calm (phlegm), and enthusiastic (yellow bile).

In 340 BC, Plato called them sensible (pistic), artistic (iconic), reasoning (dianoetic), and intuitive (noetic).

In 325 BC, Aristotle called them material (propraietari), sensual (hedone), logical (dialogike), and ethical (ethikos).

In 185 AD, Irenaeus called them historical, spontaneous, scholarly, and spiritual.

There were many more names over the years, but you get the idea.

The current names for the temperaments come from David Keirsey’s work in 1998. He called them guardians, artisans, rationals, and idealists.

By then, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator had been well established. And it came as a big surprise when Keirsey discovered that the 16 Myers-Briggs types could be mapped perfectly to the 4 temperaments, as follows:

(This is a 4 to 1 mapping. For example, the guardians correspond to any MBTI type containing SJ, meaning ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, and ISFJ.)

Not only do SJ, SP, NT, and NF map to the temperaments, but these 2-letter MBTI snippets happen to be the 2 letters that say the most about a person. Group people into these 4 temperaments, and you’ll get the starkest behavioral differences.

Isabel Briggs Myers protested incorporating temperaments into the MBTI theory, but it happened. (As you’ll see below, the temperaments often go by different names in an MBTI context.)

I find temperaments to be a very convenient way of describing someone’s personality in a nutshell. Without getting into a whole lot of details, we can look at the differences between the temperaments by going back to the bomb threats.

If you were in an office building when someone called in a bomb threat, what would you do? Here’s what’s likely for the different temperaments.

SJs (The Traditionalists):

SJs will whip out their procedure manuals, if they didn’t already have them memorized. They’ll follow the rules to the letter, making sure they did exactly what they were supposed to do in the event of an emergency.

SPs (The Experiencers):

SPs will spring into action, taking charge to make sure everyone gets evacuated. After getting a read on the situation, they’ll know what they have to do, and they’ll keep updating their plan on the fly as they get more information.

NTs (The Conceptualizers):

NTs will be fascinated by the situation. They’ll be less interested in evacuating the building than in discussing the possible motives for the bomb threat, whether it’s an effective strategy, and what the response should be.

NFs (The Idealists):

NFs will be terribly saddened that anyone would do such a thing. They’ll reflect on the state of humanity, what this world is coming to, and how they can help.

Now, do these blurbs really predict exactly what everyone would do? Of course not. In reality, a lot of people would probably just panic if there were an actual bomb threat. But this shows the theoretical differences in behavior. You’d be surprised how consistent people are in acting according to their temperament.

Back to the comments on Darkworker Supervisors Want Doctor’s Notes. I don’t like to type non-famous people without their consent, because some people don’t like it. However, Akemi from Yes to Me previously identified herself as an ENFP, while Dot from Deeper Issues identified herself as an ISTJ, and I’m an INTP.

As an NT, I was talking about how absurd this “two doctor’s notes per visit” policy is, and why they should change it.

As an NF, Akemi observed that the employee was giving away his power to others, and he needs to realize that he has the power to create his own reality.

As an SJ, Dot was saying that the rules exist for a reason, and it’s the employee’s responsibility to support the company’s policy.

All of which was perfectly predictable. Not that there are never exceptions, but people are almost always true to form. Escaping your temperament is about as likely as escaping your shadow.

What about you? What would you do during a bomb threat?