From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: CFD:  Creating an alt.* Newsgroup For Personality Typing Systems
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:50:27 GMT

In article twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>Why not put out a real RFD for sci.psychology.personality?  I'm
>skeptical of a group devoted solely to a single model of personality
>types, and I think that a (mainstream) Usenet newsgroup for discussing
>the study of personality would be well-received.


If I had my first druthers, a sci.* or misc.* newsgroup would be my first
choice as well.  However, we would need at least fifty or so avid supporters
(my guess), to make this newsgroup pass the vote, and I just don't see that
many supporters at this time.  In addition, I'm not sure how the regular
readers to sci.psychology would vote for this group to be placed into their
hierarchy, and they may argue that sci.psychology is already the appropriate
newsgroup for the subject of personality and that no new newsgroup is needed.

Yet, I've tried many times to start discussion on sci.psychology concerning
Myers-Briggs, with very limited response and essentially no interest, while
I've found very substantial interest in other newsgroups such as, believe it
or not, alt.sex, alt.personals, and alt.business.multi-level!  Apparently,
people who are interested in M-B and similar systems are spread throughout
Usenet, and by and large come from the general Usenet population (i.e, are not
restricted to trained psychologists), so one can see why I've received a lot
of response in the past from alt.sex because of its huge readership.  I'm
afraid that a sci.psychology.personality would not even be seen by those who
have an interest, and may even be scared away, if it becomes too "academic".

Restating this point in a slightly different way, one purpose for this 
proposed newsgroup is that it will be a means by which ordinary people (I
define ordinary to mean those who are not formally trained in psychology,
such as myself) can get information about personality typing for reasons of
interest to them, without feeling uncomfortable or out of place.  Many would
feel this way if the primary posters and the dominant discussion was too
academic, that is, if the language used can only be understood by those
professionals in the field of psychology.  I'm afraid that placing it in the
sci.psychology.* hierarchy would result in this.  There is also the perception
among many on Usenet of sci.* groups as being a little too "eggheadish" to
suit their interests.  That's why the alt.* groups are thriving and expanding
so rapidly.

Thus, for these reasons, if we do go the whole nine yards and put out a formal
RFD/CFV, I'd prefer to see it in the misc.* hierarchy instead.  But l think
that it may be the most effective in the alt.* hierarchy since this is fast
becoming the most 'populist' hierarchy, and it also would not take the
concerted effort to get it going as it would in a sci.* or misc.*.

I would like to get feedback on these points, particularly from those who
post regularly to sci.psychology.

Jon Noring


(p.s., I'd also like to hear further discussion on Tim's point of not focusing
on one system, i.e. Myers-Briggs, but to look at and discuss all systems, as
well as about personality itself.  Remember too, that the M-B system is far
and away the most well-known and most used personality typing system among the
general population.  Thus, I am intrigued by the possibility of forming two
groups:  an alt.personality.myers-briggs for those who just want to discuss
M-B, and sci.psychology.personality for the broader, more academic picture
that Tim suggests.  Just another idea.)


-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.

------->   I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92
------->   support UNITED WE STAND!

Newsgroups: alt.config