Stewart, I'm in broad agreement. I am reminded of programmers trying to interpret legal rules, and tying themselves in knots where someone with legal training interprets for intent and purpose. (formatting of copyright statements in code comes to mnd) however, on Myers-Brigg, psychologists I know don't place much stock in in it. seems to be sub-Freudian in reputation. I've found the test outcomes repeatable for a person - but do they really have meaning? And which MB type is most concerned with dignity, and likely to demand to be treated with respect at all time? not a usual IETF trait, I'd hazard. ad hominem is in the eye of the beholder. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant [stbryant@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 08 March 2014 09:50 To: IETF Discussion Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx Subject: Social Science and the IETF I am concerned that in the recent IETF discussion of interpersonal dynamics, insufficient consideration has been given to the innate personal characteristics of individuals that participate in the IETF process. Using the Myers-Briggs characterization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator members of the 16 types can have difficulty understanding arguments presented by another type. The nature of MBI-type induced misunderstanding has been subjected considerable research by the social scientists and is well documented. There is a danger that the normal deduction of one MBI-type will not be followed by another, and in the absence of an understanding of that thought process, it might be assumed that an ad hominem has been presented in place of an argument. Whilst, of course, people have a right to be treated with respect at all times, the IETF needs to be careful that consideration is given to the personality types of those that take part and that it does not institutionally prevent any MBI-type legitimately contributing to discussion. In the recent discussions that have taken place in the IETF on matters related to social interaction, I have developed concerns that the IETF is at risk of taking decisions outside its core competence. In matters of organizational design and the creation of rules that relate to interpersonal interaction, the IETF should, in my view, be seeking wider professional input from those qualified in the social and organizational sciences. Stewart