I received this email from Professor Boozer, who is a professor in the Business School at Stetson University in DeLand Florida. I must say it seems odd the professor would take one book and use its subjects as the cohort for analysis. Yet I particpated in the study but, contrary to the instructions, I used my real name. I have always felt losers, misfits and cowards hide behind fake names or anonymity and I hope Dr Boozer does not mind my using my name. There were all these questions to pick a phrase among several, or a word among several that we felt was the most pleasing. These kind of tests are silly and I never liked taking them but I answered as best I could.
It seemed the thrust of the psycho test was whether the Horowitz 101 were gregarious or reticent. Shy or outgoing. Social or reclusive. There was nothing asked about politics but I have a hunch the researcher is looking to see if there is a psychological profile of those whom David Horowitz considers radical. I am somewhat skeptical of the study but there is a community of scholars and so I participated to assist him in his research.
I will be collegial to the good professor but I wish he would study the sociopathic profile of American leaders and why they use murder, terrorism and power maximizing to advance their interests. Is there a psychological profile that explains the murderous behaviour of senior American national security officials who feel no shame or guilt when young soldiers are slaughtered and wounded and end up on a Memorial Wall or display in Washington, D.C.? It would be interesting to know what kind of a personality can send people to die for nothing and feel no empathy due to their unmitigated lust for power and dominance.
I’m Bob Boozer, a Professor of Management at Stetson University in Florida. I'm writing to request your participation in a study of personality and politics in academe.
Research Title: "A Study of the Jungian Psychological Type preferences of U.S. Academics Identified as Politically 'Dangerous'."
Time Requirements: 15 – 25 minutes.
Research Overview: Please see attached file for Background, Hypotheses, and Methodology.
Why should you participate? Because you would like to contribute to research concerning the role of personality and politics in academe?
Participation Requirements: Anonymously, complete an on-line personality assessment–the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
What is the MBTI? The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the most frequently used personality instrument in the world for normal populations. It indicates how you prefer to interact with your environment, perceive, and make decisions. The MBTI does not measure IQ, pathology, personal development, or skills.
Some of you may already have completed the MBTI. However, please complete the on-line version to enhance the validity of this study.
- 25 years as a college professor.
- 10+ years experience with the MBTI as a trainer and researcher (with an emphasis on psychological type and politics).
Questions? Please e-mail me with any questions. Please copy the other members of the list to ensure all participants receive the same information. (Or “Reply to All”.)
The professor got an in-house faculty development grant and this was his stated rationale for applying. I mean you've got to love this professor who seems to parrot Mr Horowitz's charge without riposte or challenge.
Background: Surveys of university faculty in the U.S. over the past 30 years have shown an increasing trend toward a liberal orientation.(http://www.cmpa.com/documents/05.03.29.Forum.Survey.pdf) More recently, conservative groups have begun to challenge this trend as evidenced by the proposals and statements put forth by the organization Students for Academic Freedom (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org). A basic claim put forth by SAF is that this increasingly liberal political trend amongst faculty serves to limit intellectual diversity on campus.
Mr. David Horowitz, who advises SAF (and who spoke during the fall 2005 semester on Stetson’s campus) has identified 101 professors whom he and his organization (http://cspc.org/) consider illustrative of the most politically “dangerous” liberal academics on America’s campuses (http://dangerousprofessors.net/). Among the concerns expressed about these professors is that they have politicized their classrooms in such a manner as to create a hostile political climate for conservative students (akin to the hostile work environment as conceptualized in sexual-harrassment law). Another concern, and one that might receive some support from the surveys showing an increased liberal orientation amongst faculty, is that potential faculty who hold a politically conservative orientation may be the subject of hiring discrimination (consciously or subconsciously) in such environments, thus perpetuating dysfunctional processes perceived to arise from the liberal orientation and bias.