Meyers-Briggs Personality Test

 Blog  Comments Off on Meyers-Briggs Personality Test
May 062016
 

Personality Tests

Regarding personality tests, I recently read the article, Personality and the Perfect Job, by Kip Parent.  Kip Parent is the chief executive officer of Keirsey.com, a website that administers personality profiling examinations.  David Keirsey, the website’s creator is also the author of Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types, which was first published in 1978.  The article is an interview between Kip Parent and a writer from Business Week.

Kip Parent explains that personality tests can be a very useful tool in choosing a career.  There are many wrong reasons why people choose their career paths.  First, direction by well-meaning parents can lead young adults in the wrong direction.  I can relate most easily to this statement.  When I decided to go to college, I had no idea what major to choose.  My parents told me that I would be good at business, so I chose Marketing and Management with a concentration in Management.  I see now that I was really lucky; my parents knew me well enough to know that I would enjoy and excel in a business-related field.

The first personality assessment I took was the Meyers-Briggs Exam, which was required for one of the freshman classes.  I realize now that had I taken the examination before college, I would have learned that Marketing and Management was the best major for me a lot earlier.  Kip Parent suggests that personality assessments be taken as early as possible because once you understand your personality, you can guide yourself toward the most relevant opportunities for you.  Some people are lucky enough to choose their careers by accident, but it is better to find out in advance what best suits you.  If you pick a career that works well with your personality, you are more likely to enjoy your job and be satisfied.  This satisfaction makes it easy to get up and go to work each morning.

The only problem with these assessments, in my case the Meyers-Briggs Personality Test, is that it’s actually difficult to answer it honestly.  Everyone has an image of their ideal self.  Maybe it what’s you look like, who you are, how you act, etc.  When we take a test that essentially judges us to determine where we fit in society, it’s challenging to answer questions honestly.  I found myself projecting my “ideal me” into the answers instead of answering the questions as I actually am right this moment.  I caught myself doing it and started to think about different answers in an attempt to justify one choice over another.  STOP.  That’s enough, I couldn’t take it any more.  I called my friend from down the hall, who I had known forever, to ask me the questions and call me on BS answers.

First question I got called out on was: “When you’re at a party you are…”

Answers:

  • The earliest person
  • The quiet person in the corner
  • The person mingling in the crowd
  • Late to arrive
  • The life of the party

Can you guess the one I picked?  I thought to myself, “well, I have been the life of the party before…”  No, everyone can play a role for a certain amount of time, whether it’s a night, a day, a week, a month, but eventually, we gravitate toward the areas where we’re most comfortable.  And that’s exactly what the Meyers-Briggs delivers.  It tells you where you’re most comfortable.  That doesn’t mean you can’t be one of the other options, it just means you have to make an attempt to go out of your way to do it.

And, I’m out. Pz.

 Posted by at 4:37 AM

DWI for Dummies

 Blog  Comments Off on DWI for Dummies
May 052016
 

DWI for Dummies

Here’s what I’ll say before I deliver this masterpiece of a historical document…If you get pulled over, know your rights.  I had a friend get pulled over, not drinking, in broad daylight…he’s just a retarded driver.  It was hilarious for about 20 seconds, then irritating.  Hopefully your experience will be better.  Serious mode ON.

 

People of the State of New York V. Joseph Trifiletti

Background

On June 17, 2007, Bethlehem police officer Christopher Hughes arrested Joseph Trifiletti for driving while intoxicated.  On Wednesday April 8, 2009, a suppression hearing was held at the Bethlehem Court House with the purpose of determining what evidence would or would not be allowed into the trial.  Renee Mergess was the prosecutor and Thomas O’Hern was the defendant’s lawyer.  Judge Paul Dwyer presided over the hearing.

Prosecution

The hearing began with Judge Dwyer announcing the case.  Then, police officer Christopher Hughes took the stand as the first witness.  Hughes had been a Bethlehem police officer for 12 years.  It is important to note that Hughes was trained in standard field sobriety testing and involved in DWI enforcement.

On June 17, 2007, Officer Hughes was on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM, A-Line shift, performing road patrol.  At 1:50 AM, Joseph Trifiletti was driving westbound on the Delmar Bypass.  Officer Hughes noticed Trifiletti drifting back and forth between two lanes.  Officer Hughes pulled onto the Delmar Bypass about 150 feet behind Trifiletti and followed him.  Officer Hughes watched as Trifiletti drifted in and out of two lanes on the bypass a total of two times (violation of vehicle and traffic law).  Then, Officer Hughes watched Trifiletti make a left turn, cutting it short (violation of vehicle and traffic law).

Officer Hughes then pulled the car over and approached the vehicle.  Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Hughes asked for Trifiletti’s license, registration, and insurance card.  Officer Hughes noticed an odor of alcohol on Trifiletti as well as, slurred speech and glassy, red eyes.  Officer Hughes continued to probe Trifiletti to determine whether or not there was probable cause for an arrest.  He asked multiple standard questions such as “where are you coming from?”, “where are you going to?”, and “have you been drinking?”  Based on Trifiletti’s answers, Officer Hughes decided that he would need to perform a series of sobriety tests, so he requested backup.  Officer Cozzy arrived on the scene with the sole purpose of protecting Officer Hughes during the administration of the test.

When an officer suspects a driver of being in violation of the law—with a blood alcohol level that’s higher than the legal limit—the driver will be asked to step out of the car to take a field sobriety test. The purpose of this is to have a standard method for gathering evidence to allow the officer to administer a blood or breath test to determine the driver’s blood alcohol level. The field sobriety test is a way of determining if the driver really is impaired. Failing a field sobriety test gives the officer probable cause to believe the driver can’t safely drive, so then a blood or breath test can be legally given to establish that the driver is over the legal limit.

Officer Hughes began by asking Trifiletti if he was on any medication, how much he had to drink, and if he had slept at all.  Then, Officer Hughes explained the first test (the HGN test), and asked questions regarding Trifiletti’s ability to perform the tests, such as whether or not he had contacts or eye problems.  Finally, Officer Hughes asked whether or not Trifiletti understood the directions; Trifiletti stated that he understood.  The purpose of the HGN test is to observe the person to see whether his eyes involuntarily jerk when a stimulus is moved slowly in front of them; this is known as nystagmus.  Officer Hughes administered the test and observed nystagmus in both of Trifiletti’s eyes; Trifiletti failed the first test.

Officer Hughes then moved on to the second test (the walk and turn test).  Again, Officer Hughes asked questions regarding Trifiletti’s ability to perform the test and whether or not he understood the directions.  Trifiletti answered the questions and stated that he understood the test and could perform it.  In this test, the officer is looking to see whether or not the person can maintain his balance, walking from heel to toe on an imaginary line for a certain distance.  Officer Hughes observed Trifiletti raise his arms to maintain his balance once and miss heel to toe steps at least twice; Trifiletti failed the second test.

Officer Hughes then moved on to the third test (the one-leg stand).  Again, Officer Hughes asked questions regarding Trifiletti’s ability to perform the test and whether or not he understood the directions.  Trifiletti answered the questions and stated that he understood the test and could perform it.  In this test, the officer is looking to see whether or not the person can maintain his balance while standing stationary on one leg.  Officer Hughes observed Trifiletti swaying, putting his foot down, raising his arms, and hopping in order to maintain his balance; Trifiletti failed the third test.

Officer Hughes, seeking more evidence, administered one more test, the alphabet test.  The purpose of this test is to see whether or not the person has the mental ability to recite the alphabet at the current time.  Officer Hughes asked questions regarding Trifiletti’s ability to perform the test and whether or not he understood the directions.  Trifiletti stated that he understood and could perform the test.  Officer Hughes observed no mistakes on this test; Trifiletti passed the fourth test.

After administering the four sobriety tests, Officer Hughes had evidence to allow himself to administer a blood or breath test.  Upon doing so, Trifiletti was found to over the legal alcohol limit and was placed under arrest at 2:11 AM.  Trifiletti was given his Miranda Rights and DWI Warnings, and then transported to the 447 Police Station for processing.

Defense: Cross-Examination

Thomas O’Hern began the cross-examination by asking Officer Hughes questions about the position of his vehicle in relation to Trifiletti’s vehicle when the infractions were committed.  O’Hern established that Officer Hughes was checking the area and had to pull onto the highway in order to follow Trifiletti; O’Hern was attempting to set up evidence that Officer Hughes was too far from the vehicle to observe any infractions.

O’Hern then asked Officer Hughes multiple questions about the ability of Trifiletti to perform the various sobriety tests that were administered.  O’Hern attempted to set up the case that the flashing lights of Officer Hughes’s police car affected Trifiletti’s ability to follow the stimulus in the HGN test.  O’Hern then attempted to set up the case that Trifiletti;s arthritis in his hips affected his ability to walk in a straight line toe to heel and his ability to stand on one leg without moving.

O’Hern then asked Officer Cozzy questions about his purpose at the scene, and the administration of the sobriety tests by Officer Hughes.  Officer Cozzy stated that he was there for the protection of Officer Hughes and nothing more.  He also stated that he did not observe any of the sobriety tests given by Officer Hughes.

Finally, O’Hern claimed that there were no violations as they are defined on the night of Trifiletti’s arrest, and that the police stop was not lawful.

Here’s an Example of a Sobriety Test.

 

 

Imagine that, some rights were violated.  Amazing.  Did you learn from it, brooo?  Hope you did.  And on next week’s show – something.

Til next time,

Head Bro, out.

 Posted by at 2:53 AM