Using Assessment Instruments in Your Firm
David and Blair explore the big topic of personality assessment tools that can help firms “get the right people on the bus.”
BLAIR ENNS: David, we're doing this on a Saturday. What's wrong with us?
DAVID C. BAKER: Are we working too hard?
BLAIR: We should do a podcast on that, work life balance.
DAVID: I don't have the time.
BLAIR: Because I think you and I have some maybe contrarian points of view on the subject of work life balance. And I'm a libra so balance is very important to me.
BLAIR: I lost you at the astrological reference, didn't I?
DAVID: You did a little bit. But the other thing too is that we, because we're doing this podcast, and so many folks are listening, it's also like I'm having to explain the areas where you're wrong, and I'm kind of getting tired of that. There are about eight or nine areas, if you're interested I could list them for you.
DAVID: Again - that's right. No, we're doing this on a Saturday because you've been traveling a lot. I've been traveling a lot. And we didn't want to miss it. It's fun to do. We look forward to it. So it's fine.
BLAIR: Yeah, yeah. Okay, so today we're ... I don't know what the title is, but I think of Jim Collins and his book, Good to Great. Get the right people on the bus. And really, we're going to dive into a category of tools that you might use to get the right people on the bus, determine if you have the right people, or if you have them in the right roles. We want to explore personality assessments.
DAVID: Right. That's a big topic, isn't it? When I was looking for some solutions years ago to help people with exactly that problem, I explored all kinds of things before I landed on assessment tools like this. And one of the things I used was an intelligence testing tool called Wonderlic. And it was actually a disaster because it ended up measuring the extent to which the people going through this actually went through formal schooling, which didn't, in the end, have anything to do with intelligence, so I sort of dumped it.
It's the same thing that the NFL uses to assess whether a quarterback's going to be smart enough, and I think they're looking ... They need to be in the mid-20s. And then if it's an interior offensive lineman, then they really want them to be in single digits, they don't want them thinking too much. They just want them to be really big and take up space. But it was an interesting experiment for me because it was an example of how it just didn't help at all. And then I was trying all kinds of things and then landed on an assessment tool around personality profile, and my eyes opened up wide, and not just because of how it led to some insights for my clients, but just about me personally. I just remember so many reflective moments as I was going through all of these different tools because it was a part of the certification process for me. It was really life-changing.
BLAIR: You used DISC now, but was that the first one you evaluated?
DAVID: No, I experimented with six of them because I was really interested in repeatability and just the validity of each of them. There are actually more than 200 of these things, and most of them, it turned out, were really just bullshit. It just wasn't really scientific. There's six of them on the personality assessment side that are fairly reliable. Those would be DISC, Endra, TJTA, PI, Meyers-Briggs just barely, and then Kolbe. And I experimented with all of those and then landed on DISC PPSS, which is DISC applied to work for various reason. So yeah, so what I'm using mainly is a DISC variant at the moment.
BLAIR: Did you know Kolbe is founded by Kathy Kolbe whose maiden name is Kathy Wonderlic?
DAVID: No. I didn't know that.
BLAIR: Yeah, I don't know his name. But the daughter of the inventor of the Wonderlic assessment.
DAVID: Wow. Now, what tool were you using and what are you using now?
BLAIR: So we recently have switched over to DISC, but we're still continuing to use an obscure assessment that I discovered many years ago called the OXICON Written Interview. And it's really an obscure one. I believe it was the PhD thesis of Dr. Robert Means, who I think is no longer with us. And I went to OXICON because I was using something else, and I was trying to find the name of it in preparation for this podcast. The initials were PI, but it wasn't Predictive Index. I think it was like Sales Performance Indicator or something. And I was using this assessment on my clients, and I had these two new business folks at different firms who had essentially the same profile and had different levels of performance.
In fact, one was a real go-getter, and the other one, his boss and I referred to as the porn surfer because he was routinely caught with his feet up on the desk surfing pornography on the internet. And when he decided to do some work, he was really productive. But I thought, "Well, this test is no good because these two people essentially have the same profile, but their motivational make ups was quite different." So I took those two folks and a third new business guy I was working with at the time who also had a similar profile and I asked them if they would be a guinea pig. And I ran three different assessments on them. And the OXICON I discovered from a friend of mine, and it was the dark horse. But it was the only one that showed me the performance or lack of performance that I was seeing. In fact, the guy from whom I got the OXICON assessment, he called me when he saw the profiles, and he said, "Wow, this one, this is really interesting. This person has no business being in sales of any kind." And that was the porn surfer. So I went with the OXICON and we used it for many years. I've tested nowhere near what you've tested, but probably a couple of thousand people and I got to see the patterns. But that was how I arrived at the OXICON Written Interview.
And we'll come back to it. There are things, it hasn't evolved. It's got questions in it like, "At what age did you quit smoking?" I mean these really leading questions. And i remember when I took the assessments myself, and it sounds like the assessments that you considered you took them yourself to see how well you thought that it had kind of nailed your own personality. When I read my OXICON profile, it made me angry. I took it on a Friday and I was angry all weekend over it. I said, "This is stupid." And then I gave my profile to my wife and she said, "No, that's you."
DAVID: Right. And that is the best thing to do once you've read it is to give it to somebody who knows you well, because they're assessment of you will be so much more accurate than your assessment of yourself is. I've found that to be the case as well. Yeah. Never give it to somebody who loves you unless you want the truth.
BLAIR: Let's take a couple more minutes to talk a little bit more about the range of options that you have when you're considering personality assessment, then I really want to get into the meat of where and how do you use these things, and where do you have to be careful not to use them, or how do people use them wrong? So what made you decide on DISC?
DAVID: So it's not the most accurate. It's the second most accurate. PI is the most scientifically valid. But the results are just not accessible to the person who takes it. So they go through the thing and they get this chart and it's one or two pages. And they're left just wondering, "Oh, how do I interpret this? What does this really mean?" While I give up just a little bit of accuracy with DISC, the charts are knowable. You know what they mean. They make sense. And the text basically makes sense. Some of it needs to be updated. And one of the 15 profiles has language in it that some people find a little bit offensive. But that's why. It's because it's repeatable. It doesn't require an expert, somebody who's been certified in it to interpret it. And I found that to be very useful.Because when you're giving employees one of these tools, it can feel somewhat violating of their personal privacy and so on.
BLAIR: And judgmental as well.
DAVID: It could be, yes. For sure. So the last thing you want is somebody feeling like somebody else knows something about them that they don't know themselves. And so with all of these tools, you can let the employee get a copy of their results either right then or later. I always insist on giving them the results immediately. And then I want them to be able to read it and be able to relax. And in some cases, it's not accurate. But in most cases it is, but they're not left wondering like, "Does somebody know something about me that's going to be used against me?" That's why I've used that tool primarily.
BLAIR: Yeah, that's interesting because in our use of the OXICON Written Interview, one of the significant drawbacks of it is it's not accessible at all. It basically gives you four numbers, and it gives you a couple of sentences that are triggered by whether your number is above or below 50. And so a change in score of one point can trigger the opposite language. So when I was sharing the results with people, I would say, "Don't read the description, it's not very helpful, it's not very meaningful." Of course, everybody reads the description.
DAVID: Especially after you say that.
BLAIR: Yeah. And so after awhile, after a few years of observing the patterns, I just wrote my own document that described what the different profiles meant. In my own experience, I hesitate to call it data, it is data. I'm not as scientific about these things as you, but I would see the patterns and I would describe the different patterns and what the different patterns meant. It was a very frustrating tool for people to read because they would just get these four numbers. But I wanted to ask you this, is once you have somebody's DISC profile, do you start to make all these generalizations about them? Because for years I've said to people, "Once I have your OXICON profile, you cease to be a human being. You're just four numbers." And when you start saying something, I think, "Oh, that's your power score talking. Or that's your affiliation need talking."
When I'm talking to a lot of my clients to this day there are things. I don't remember everybody's profile, but most people that I have tested, when I'm talking to them, I'm keenly aware. They'll say something and then that'll trigger recall of what their score is in a certain area. That's one of the reasons I've never tested my wife. I felt like I would like her to continue to be a human being to me.
DAVID: That's so noble of you. You're going to win some award somewhere for that really human perspective.
BLAIR: So my question to you is once you have somebody's DISC profile, does that change the way you think about them? Do you make kind of these judgments about them that you think, "Oh, what you're saying or doing is typical of your profile?"
DAVID: So I do make some early provisional decisions/judgments about people, but I'm always learning the nuances. So I might see that somebody's highest D, but I'm still learning what it means if somebody's highest D but has a whole lot of C. So it's not quite simple enough in my mind to be able to immediately put somebody in a box. The other bigger issue is that these personality profile assessments, and I prefer to call them assessments rather than tests because when people take a test they feel like they can fail. It's just who you are, it's not good or bad. People are to different degrees self-aware.
And so the assessment gives us a sense of how they're going to react naturally, unless they're self-aware enough to see the situation and shake their behavior a little bit based on what that situation requires. So somebody who's more mature and self-aware can mask their natural profile, unless they are mad or tired, in which case, the real person will come out. So in many cases, it's not all that useful to say immediately this person will always act like that. But it certainly is indicative. I mean, you and I have conversations all the time where you'll say to me, "Oh, that's your something." Like, "That's your need not to be liked."
BLAIR: Your affiliation score, yeah.
DAVID: Yeah, exactly. Or, "That's your drive to just speak the truth, even if it's jarring sometimes." And when you say those kinds of things, it's always accurate, and it's true. So I do think it's really useful, but it shouldn't put people in a box they can't climb out of for sure, because we can be very mature, self-aware human beings.
BLAIR: I'm fond of saying that one of the reasons these are helpful is they help you identify your strengths, and we should all be in positions and roles in our life and career where we are allowed and encouraged to play to our strengths. But they also point out what our weaknesses are. I believe that we should all work to overcome our weaknesses just in specific situations. We shouldn't try to correct them over the long term and turn into somebody we're not. But being aware of what your weaknesses are allows you to remind yourself like, "I know that sometimes I just need to let go of the need to be right and shut up and take the money." So I want to come back to this point of self-awareness. Are you saying that if I run the assessment on you and I show you that, David, you've got strengths in this area, and weaknesses in this area, how is somebody who's got a high degree of self-awareness going to respond differently or use that information differently than somebody who maybe isn't so self-aware?
DAVID: Great question. To roll back just a minute here, I really like what you just said about maybe in some circumstances we need to shape our behavior but we shouldn't work at trying to change who we are. That's really a brilliant observation. It makes so much sense to me. So if I'm going to use my assessment well, to start with, I'm going to figure out what does this job require of a person who's going to succeed? Am I equipped to do that? For instance, does this require me to be very social? Does it require me to be very patient? And no, it doesn't in this case. So maybe I would be a fit.
But if it requires me to be those things, and those don't come naturally to me, and I wouldn't phrase those as much as weaknesses as more like that's just how I normally operate. Because if somebody requires patience in a certain situation, that makes perfect sense that they would struggle in this situation, but if maybe they're a counselor, patience is exactly what's required. So patience isn't a weakness in either one, it's just not necessarily a fit for one of them. So it's about deciding whether my natural way of acting is going to be a fit for this situation, and if it isn't, then I can still succeed for sure.
But it's going to require me to exert a lot more energy than normal. And it's going to pull that energy out of me and in order to ... So if my job requires me to be an extrovert, I can still do that if I'm an introvert. But I'm going to have to recharge in some way. Is that sustainable? And I think putting people in jobs that are not a match for who they are naturally is just not a blessing to them. It doesn't make sense. So it's about respecting the individual, but recognizing that each individual can step outside of themselves when necessary, but we shouldn't be asking them to step out of themselves all the time.
BLAIR: Yeah. That's asking them to be somebody they're not.
DAVID: Right, which goes back to your comment about we should not try to change ourselves that way. It doesn't make sense. I remember the first time a read the first profile I was having done to me when I was going through the certification process. And I walked into the living room and my wife was there and I said to Julie, I was like, "Oh, I just hate who I am. I just wish," and then I made a bunch of statements. And she said, "No, that's exactly why I love you." You have to be aware of the rough edges and manage those sometimes.
Somebody else told me one time, and this stuck with me like no other statement around personality profiles has, and it's this. That our biggest strengths, if over-used, are our biggest weaknesses. And I think that is so true. So if I'm an objective, hard, charger, if I'm too much of an objective, hard, charger, then I'm going to hurt people's feelings and they won't listen to me anymore. Or if I'm a patient person, if I overuse that patience, I may not step in when a situation requires it.
BLAIR: What happens is we go to our strengths too often. It's just so easy to go to your strength. And there are times when you shouldn't be leveraging that strength. You should be going in the opposite direction and in the moment be shoring up a weakness. So we tend to overuse those things, and they, in effect, become our weakness. All right, we're talking about how to use personality assessments to get the right people on the bus. And when we come back from the short break, I want to ask you about people trying to beat the assessment.
BLAIR: So does DISC have a distortion index built in? Can you tell when someone's trying to beat the assessment?
DAVID: No, you can't. It does not have that built into it. But there are only three times when the assessment is not accurate, typically. One is if somebody's not old enough, and that cut off is about 18, 19, 20 years old. The other is if they don't understand the terminology that you're using. So if english is not a native or primary language, or if they are using a word slightly different. That's why participants are urged to look up the meanings of words before they answer questions. And the third is if something fairly traumatic has happened. So a really tough business environment or a divorce or a death or a bankruptcy or something like that can impact it. But generally, they're really tough to beat.
there are certain profiles where the participants in this certain category always argue with it. So if I'm making a presentation and I ask for questions, the first hand that goes up is always somebody from the same one of the 15 subtypes. They just like argue with things and it's always funny to say ... Before I even hear the question I say, "Oh, you're from the creative DC conflict profile, right?" And they kind of look at me and then they just don't say anything.
BLAIR: So a distortion index is a way of asking basically similar questions differently and gauging whether or not somebody's trying to manipulate the test. And one of the early assessments I used, and I don't remember which one it was, it did have a distortion index. They're fairly expensive to build, I'm told, so there aren't a lot of assessment have them built in. I would always get on the distortion index, and I forget what the rating was, but I always get a nine, which means people are answering fairly honestly. And then I got one that was a four, and I called the consultant I was using that I bought the assessments from, and he said, "This person is clearly trying are project an image of himself that he doesn't believe to be true."
And as I got to know that person, who was a partner, one of three partners in a firm, as I got to know him a little, I thought he was the most jovial, likable guy. And then as I got to know more, I saw that there maybe was this kind of disingenuous, sly part of his personality. But the advice was when somebody's trying to beat the system, you just throw the assessment out. Which leads me to a question about retesting. Do you retest people and do you have a point of view or a guidance on whether or not that's a good idea? Because I'm sure you've tested I think over 20 thousand people, I'm sure you've had many of those people say, "Oh no, no. That's not me. I was having a bad day."
DAVID: Yeah, sometimes I'll get that. And so then I'll just interact with them during the next two days and I don't need the assessment to know what sort of a person they are. You can tell just by how they ask questions, when they ask them, how much they speak up, how they walk down the hall, how they wait for an elevator, how they order lunch. You don't need an assessment once you get good at this to figure out what they are. So you can quickly decide whether that's true or not. Some people just simply don't want to be pigeonholed at all, and so they just say it's wrong when it really isn't wrong. But I do believe in retesting not immediately, because it's just a waste of time and money typically. These things aren't necessarily cheap.
But I have I think 40 people, the same folks over a 10 year span of time, just to test the validity of how these things change. And they very seldom change. Every once in awhile, one will change if it's a tough work environment that requires them to be a person that's not a natural fit for them. So they're put in a new role, creating a project management team or something, and even the principles are not excited about this, and they have to keep fighting. And so you will see some artificial results in those cases, but you can usually filter those out.
BLAIR: I've had people say to me, "No, that assessment isn't me. I was having a really bad day. Something happened to me that day and I just wasn't thinking clearly." And then I've retested a small number of those people, and most of them retest significantly, but I often wonder if the assessment doesn't end up showing the person that they wanted to project rather than their real self. Do you have any thoughts on that?
DAVID: So when you've retested those folks, do most of the results look the same or do they look different?
BLAIR: Most of them have looked different.
DAVID: Huh. And were those the DISC tool?
BLAIR: No, OXICON.
DAVID: Oh, yeah. So I don't know if I can speak to that one. But on the DISC side, I don't think that's very frequent. And the initial scientific results were validated across 30 million people, and I think it was six countries. And they just did not find many differences there. So I think there's always room for exceptions, but I'm hesitant to talk too much about them. All we care about is this generally indicative of who the person is? And after all, like on a scale of one to ten, whether you're an eight or a six and a half honestly doesn't matter. What we're really looking at is the relationship of those four axis to each other, not the exact point on the scale each one of them is. And I just don't see that changing all that much from one to the next.
BLAIR: So the absolute values don't matter nearly as much as the relational values?
DAVID: That's right. The relative values are the things that matter.
BLAIR: Okay. We should check the legal box here. There are appropriate and there are legal uses of these assessments, and then there are inappropriate and even illegal uses of these assessments. Where are the lines of jurisprudence and the lines of ethics?
DAVID: Yeah. This might change by country, but in the US where I'm most familiar with what happens here, for many years, only one of those six was validated by the DOL, the Department of Labor, as a valid screening tool, and that was PI. More recently, Kolbe has been accepted into that pantheon. And those are the only two as far as I'm aware. Where you can stay out of trouble is to say, "What does the job require? Does the job require this attention to detail or this level of interaction with people or whatever?" And then you have a discussion with the person and say, "Listen, the job requires this attention to detail. It appears like that's more a challenge for you. How do you feel about that?"
So I'm not using it to automatically exclude people for sure. In fact, I'm usually only applying the tool at the very end of the process and using it as a way to facilitate a good discussion with somebody, even if it's not for a role that typically requires a certain profile. I think it's incredibly valuable to find out how this person that you're thinking of hiring wants communication to be. Would they prefer a face to face meeting or a quick email? How much direction do they want? Is too much direction a frustration for them? Or too little a frustration? I just think it's treating humans more respectfully to shape our behavior to what they want. So if we use it in that context, we're not in any legal quagmires at all.
The first step of using profiles is to be self-aware. But that doesn't go far enough at all. It's really about how do I shape my behavior so that an individual experiences me in a way that's not distracting to them? So I'm going to be their manager, how do I manage people individual based on how their profiles are? So if that's our purpose for doing it, then there aren't any legal issues there.
BLAIR: So I am assuming if you're testing multiple people in firm, or maybe everybody in the firm, that those profiles should be make public so that these team members can figure out how best to communicate with each other and work with each other?
DAVID: Generally, yes. Every once in awhile, I'll come across somebody who does not want their profile seen by other people, and I always honor that request, but it's very rare. Maybe one out of 500 people, something like that. Nowadays, people are very transparent about that. Most of the time, what happens is they take that one page that shows the chart and a summary of who they are naturally, and they tape it to their cubicle. And then for the next week, everybody that walks by, they kind of joke about it. Maybe they'll do the opposite just to get a laugh or whatever. But there's nothing secret about it. They like just these conversations that it facilitates.
People find that now they can talk about things that are difficult for them. Like now they can say, "Now you understand why I don't want you to keep interrupting me, right?" They can point to the chart and then laugh. So it just facilitates more conversations that otherwise might be filled with tension.
BLAIR: Yeah. At Win Without Pitching, on all our team members, we use DISC, Kolbe, and Gallup Strengths Finder. And so a combination of those three assessments. And I'm really impressed with how frequently my team members are having conversations with each other where they are referencing their similarities or differences in any one of those assessments. There isn't a day that goes by where there isn't somebody referencing their assessment relative to the person, one of their teammates, that they're dealing with. So the source of friction has been highlighted through these assessments. And the prevention of future problems, or the attempt to prevent future problems, is also used by mentioning and leveraging these assessments. They've been really helpful from an internal point of view.
Externally, I want to talk a little bit about the wrong uses. And I'll just lead here by saying I know when I first started using these assessments, I over-weighted them. I was warned, but I did it anyway. I took them as gospel, and now I'm way out on the other end of the spectrum. I might even be guilty of under-weighting them. What I want to do in a hiring context, the process that I lay out for our clients is you sort the resumes into piles, yes, no, and maybe in terms of interviews. The yes's, five minute telephone interview to make sure that they can speak english or whatever your language is and they have good telephone presence. Usually, these are sales and new business positions, so you want somebody who presents well.
And then the next step is to do the assessment and just say, "I'm going to have you do an assessment before you come in for an interview. It's just going to help me guide the conversation." And then you get the profile. So if you have red flags in the profile, then you would interview against that. You would not not interview somebody because of how they scored on an assessment. But way back 10 years ago, I would have just rejected people based on a profile and advised my client to not even interview based on a profile. Where are you on that spectrum?
DAVID: So my experience comes from an initial pool of 13 thousand people, and then another 8 thousand people. With most positions in a firm, it makes no difference in terms of fit, although you will see that developers in a DEV shop are almost always the same. Analysts are the same. Researchers are the same. Copy writers are of two different types. So it can be helpful in some cases, but I don't use any of that as a screening tool. But there are five positions at a firm where there is a normal match, and so I would say this person's going to be most comfortable in this particular role. It doesn't meant that somebody else couldn't fill that role, but it's going to be a challenge from them, just so we just have a comfortable conversation about whether that's a challenge they're willing to accept. And if they are, then we kind of move forward. So wouldn't necessarily rule somebody out because of it, but I would use it just as a way to facilitate a conversation.
BLAIR: Okay. I want to wrap up here by asking you what your Meyers-Briggs personality type is?
DAVID: I don't even remember. It can't be a healthy one, it's got to be something on the bad end of every scale I would think. But I don't remember what my Meyers-Briggs is. My DISC is off the charts D, way high D, off the low end of I, what I just jokingly call it down in Uni-bomber land. Then I have no S at all, so very little attention to process. And then I have quite a bit of C. So I would have what's called the creative profile. But it doesn't mean creative like we use in this industry. It's creative because the D and the C are finding that they're fighting against each other and you have to find a, "Creative," way to resolve those conflicts. So I have a DC conflict. I'm a control freak. I love to be in charge. I'm not naturally a social person. And I love data and science. That's me. Where are you on the DISC side?
BLAIR: Well, hold on. I'll tell you that, but at first, my favorite personality website is, it's a long URL, and we'll publish it in the show notes. But I reference this often. I'm going to read you what I think your Meyers-Briggs is from this website. I think you might be an ISTP, which the name for this on this website for ISTP is the psycho vigilante.
"ISTPs are quiet, unassuming people who tend to be mechanically gifted but withdrawn and reserved. ISTPs often need a great deal of personal space and alone time, which may give others the impression that they are aloof. In reality, this is necessary to hide their secret identities. The typical ISTP leads a dual life. His outward reserve and quiet masks an inward seething rage at the injustice of life. Often, the death of a loved one at the hands of a criminal. In this secret life, the ISTP uses his mechanical gifts to create a terrifying arsenal of bizarre weapons with which to strike fear into the heart of evil. Sometimes, ISTPs may become evil themselves, either slowly, or over a long period of time, or in response to a perceived rejection from the very people they are trying to save."
DAVID: Oh, this explains why I love Dexter.
BLAIR: Okay. Recreation. "ISTPs are happiest when they are building and constructing either new weapons to smite their enemies or new plots to destroy those who oppose them. They have a very industrial sense of aesthetics, and can spend hours absorbed in the appreciation of works of art, such as the 1969 Hemi Cuda retrofitted with missile launchers and ejection seats."
DAVID: You've nailed me. I cannot disagree with that.
BLAIR: Compatibility. "ISTPs don't often get along well with their extroverted cousins, evil overlords and mad scientists. Instead, they prefer the company of INTPs, or perhaps their pets. Romantic relationships with ISTPs tend to be drawn out tragic affairs filled with bitterness, longing, and teenage angst. The sex is usually pretty good, however." I'm sure you don't want to comment on that.
DAVID: Oh my goodness.
BLAIR: So this is the funnest personality profiling website. It's not your typical personality types. It's hilarious.
DAVID: Okay, so that's going to have to be in the show notes and people are going to immediately go there to see what they are. That's hilarious.
BLAIR: Yeah. I reference it so often. So DISC, I'm the inspiration profile. So the typical new business person. I'm high D, highest I, no S, moderate C.
BLAIR: That's my DISC profile. So what does that say about me?
DAVID: It says that you're a significant risk taker, that you are very persuasive, that you are never at a party and anybody doesn't know that. The light's going to shine on you naturally.
BLAIR: I walk in and I think, "These are my people and I'm going to go and touch every one of them."
DAVID: And how come more people aren't here to enjoy me this evening? And you change direction on a dime. That's the low S. And many times low S's are married to high S's.
DAVID: And that's a significant source ... This is just hypothetical. I'm talking about you.
BLAIR: Actually, my wife has the same DISC profile as you.
DAVID: Oh, well I could never live with you. So I don't know. Yeah, so you change on a dime in this context, and you're in love with the idea of data, but you don't lack of it get in the way.
BLAIR: I'm being outed.
DAVID: Oh my goodness, this is too much fun.
BLAIR: Yeah, this is fantastic. Okay, I think maybe there's a follow up to this one down the road someday. But we'll publish that weird URL in the show notes, and it is so much fun at parties. Get everybody to take their Meyers-Briggs and then read them this profile. It's hilarious, especially after a couple of glasses of wine. All right, thanks, David. This has been great fun.
DAVID: Thank you, Blair.