When you are coaching someone or selecting a candidate for a job, it is useful to remember that MindSonar is a contextualized, two-level measuring system, rather than a standard test. In that sense, MindSonar is like a two layered cake. Layer one is measuring Meta Programs and values. Layer two is finding out which combination of those works well in a given situation. So remember that MindSonar is contextualized, meaning that it is adapted to the situation it is used in. This is a major difference with other psychological tests. The good thing about this, is that it is calibrated to the situation you are using it in, so it is – or at minimum has the potential to be – much more accurate for that situation than any standard test could be. And – as so often – there is also a price to pay: you will have to determine what the desired Meta Programs and Graves Drives are – for that situation.
To give an example, let’s presume that there is a standard test for ‘Empathy’. I haven’t looked it up, but there probably is such a test somewhere. Empathy: the ability to feel or to experience what goes on with other people. Think ‘rapport’. Think ‘mirror neurons’. Now, if I am hiring someone as a coach for college students, I would probably want them to be reasonably empathic. So I test them with this empathy test. And I might also want to find a coach who is congruent, and persuasive, and dependable, so I also give them tests on all these qualities. I might end up with a whole bunch of tests, depending on how specific I want to get. This presupposes, by the way, that I have a pretty good idea of what qualities a good students coach has. I might even find a test for coaching ability somewhere, although that would probably not be focused on coaching students.
So what I end up with is with multiple tests for several different qualities. Or if I am lucky I find a test that tests specifically for the task I want. Most of these tests, however are ‘general purpose’ or ‘multi-context’; e.g. they refer to stable characteristics. They are assuming that if person X has the quality of ’empathy’, they will display that quality in all contexts. Which is a pretty doubtful assumption, actually.
The advantage of this approach is that I can start right away. Break out the tests and start measuring. The disadvantage is that I usually need to use several different tests, that I have to somehow coordinate the results. And how do these tests relate to the context I am measuring for? In this case: how dependable is a general empathy test in predicting how well someone will do as a students coach?
Enter MindSonar. Now what I do is, I first identify some positive examples. Which students coaches are doing fine and getting good results? I profile them with MindSonar and I find the average profile that defines the thinking style of a happy and effective students coach. This average profile is my calibration, it is my thinking style wish list. Or my norm profile. I check to what extent candidates resemble this profile. And I can be reasonably certain that I am measuring something that is relevant for that context.
There is a lot more to this, for instance how you can determine a norm profile without measuring examples. But I won’t get into that today. What I want to stress here, is that MindSonar is two layer system. Layer one: MindSonar measures Meta Programs and values. Layer two: we determine which Meta Programs and values someone needs for a certain function or a certain task