Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Johari

Have you heard of this? I read about it on a couple of the many blogs I read obsessively (more about that later). As I understand it, a Johari window is basically a four-square grid containing words about personality traits. The four quadrants are divided by traits that are known by you and those that are known by others, and how these overlap: Arena (known to self and others), Façade (known to self but not others), Blind Spot (known to others but not self), and Unknown (not known by anyone).

So, Readers! All five of you! (And I’m overestimating generously.) In order to collect data for the “known to others” part... I need others. That means you. And you. But not you. So please take 60 seconds to go here and tell me something about myself.

Rach, I also expect your comment as to whether this is a legitimate psychological technique or just another wondrous way to kill time on the internet.

5 comments:

alec said...

i recently discovered this johari stuff, but i consider it significantly flawed... for example, the analysis might say that i didn't know that i was "caring", but it's entirely possible that if i were given more than just 6 words to choose about myself that i would have chosen "caring" as a "self-adjective"... anyway... bah humbug...

-alec

indiana said...

It seems okay as a technique. Theres nothing empirical about it, (i.e. we as humans "decide" there are these four categories, and logically, in our culture, we believe and accept this; however, there's nothing that I know of that supports this as "the way things are." Its just a framework we can use to understand the way things are, as in the way things REALLY are we can't get to, so for our purposes, the way things are pretty much IS the way we understand them. Mediators, such as metaphors and framworks and words are not getting in the way of our understanding {although they kinda are} they are part of it.)

I can imagine something like this being used in therapy. In fact, I'm gonna think more about that. BUT based on Alec's comment, maybe I should go find one first. But the way I imagine it, you wouldn't choose the words from a list, you would just offer them. Or perhaps with kids, choose from some with corresponding drawings. So that's my adaptation. I'll check it out.

indiana said...

Okay, after seeing one:

I think alec has a point. There's something completely arbitrary about the nubmer 5-6. Also, the words in the window. I don't mind that they're all positive, but I don't get how the creators made those decisions. There's proabably a way to address this using a statistical technique called factor analysis... I'm gonna think more about that. By the way, I made one. Emily you must go. I will ask others, eventually. So friends, if you read Emily's blog and see my link... (which isn't a link so type it in. oops)

Rachael's Johari:

http://kevan.org/johari?name=indiana_loco

indiana said...

Okay,

I know I've already commented twice, but I've come up with something else. I did think of this when i first thought aobut Johari, but i couldn't articulate it. Anyway, I think the issue is "known by others" and "unknown" and "known by me" and "known by both" a paraphrase of the 4 quadrants--my issue is with "known." I guess I would rather go with "perceived." Because people can be "wrong" in all four quadrants, as much as this stuff can be got at "objectively."

And the way the words are just on a big list--how exactly are we defining all these words? Okay, now I want to revise this, but if it's from the 1950s someone probably has.

I imagine some "pegtigo fire"-type research soon. :-)

indiana said...

Okay,

I know I've already commented twice, but I've come up with something else. I did think of this when i first thought aobut Johari, but i couldn't articulate it. Anyway, I think the issue is "known by others" and "unknown" and "known by me" and "known by both" a paraphrase of the 4 quadrants--my issue is with "known." I guess I would rather go with "perceived." Because people can be "wrong" in all four quadrants, as much as this stuff can be got at "objectively."

And the way the words are just on a big list--how exactly are we defining all these words? Okay, now I want to revise this, but if it's from the 1950s someone probably has.

I imagine some "pegtigo fire"-type research soon. :-)