Career Guidance and the Role of Personality: A Critical Evaluation of Methods Based on RIASEC and MBTI

Today, the question is whether personality should play a role and if it should be central in defining a career project or choosing a profession.

Why Such a Question?

This question is crucial because personality tests and the career guidance tests created from them form the basis of guidance methods offered to students and employees undergoing career transitions through competency assessments. In other words, does it make sense to consider that a particular personality is needed to be a taxi driver, a singer, or a software engineer? This article aims to briefly touch on some concepts and elements to consider for reasoning and reflection.

Career guidance is a crucial process in an individual's career development. Historically, this approach has often emphasized the individual's personality, suggesting that matching character traits with professions was essential for a successful career. Theories of career guidance based on personality have their roots in the work of psychologists like Holland, who developed the RIASEC model. This model posits that individuals and work environments can be classified into six types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional (Holland, 1997). The central idea is that job satisfaction and success depend on the congruence between an individual's personality type and the work environment.

While Holland's model is widely used, it has been criticized for its oversimplification and significant omissions. One of my personal criticisms is that human personality is adaptive, varying according to the environment, context, and social group in which it operates. Your behavior and preferences change. Think about whether you behaved the same way with colleagues if you have changed jobs. Do you act identically at home, when you go out for drinks with friends, or when watching a rugby match with friends? Of course not. This personality evolves over time with your experiences. If considered as a measurable value, which these tests attempt to do, it is clear that it is not stable. Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) argue that reducing career guidance to type matches neglects the complexity of individuals' interests and aptitudes. Moreover, research has shown that personality is not a reliable predictor of job success (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Therefore, relying solely on personality to guide career choices is inadequate.

In career guidance and reorientation, the emphasis on individuals' personalities is central, particularly through the use of widely used tests such as RIASEC and MBTI, often used in competency assessments and services misleadingly labeled as coaching. While this approach can offer an initial understanding of personal inclinations and preferences, it presents several major drawbacks. First, these tests tend to categorize individuals into fixed types, leading to a reductive view of personality, ignoring its complexity, evolvability, and adaptability. An individual's personality is a dynamic amalgam of traits evolving with time and experiences, which is difficult to capture in rigid categories. Moreover, focusing on personality can induce a form of determinism, implying that there are "ideal" careers for each personality type. This perspective neglects other crucial factors in career choice, such as skills, interests, values, desires, and life circumstances. Additionally, studies have questioned the scientific validity of some of these tests, particularly the MBTI, whose theoretical foundations and reliability are often criticized. The predominant use of these tests in guidance can lead to simplistic and potentially misleading conclusions about the most suitable career for an individual, hindering a more nuanced and personal exploration of their career options.

The modern job market evolves rapidly, making fixed matches between personality and profession obsolete. Today's technical skills may not be relevant tomorrow, and qualities like adaptability and continuous learning become crucial (Schwab, 2016). This evolution suggests that career guidance should focus less on personality and more on developing versatile skills.

It's possible to go further today to stay current by considering cultural and gender diversity in career guidance. Gender stereotypes and cultural norms can influence career recommendations based on personality, leading to the reproduction of inequalities (Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005). This underscores the importance of moving away from personality-based models to embrace a more inclusive and context-sensitive approach. And indeed, context is entirely absent from all personality-based guidance methods.

Alternatives to the Personality-Based Approach

While the holistic approach to guidance, such as the "Life-Design" model by Savickas, offers a contemporary perspective, it is essential to recognize the historical importance of career or guidance coaching. Career coaching, although it has gained popularity over the past few decades, has its roots in practices and theories developed well before 2005. It is distinguished by its individualized approach and personal support. This method goes beyond simple personality-job matching to focus on the individual's personal and professional development. Theorists like Carl Rogers, with his work on the person-centered approach in the 1950s, laid some of the foundations of coaching by emphasizing the importance of empathetic listening and self-reflection in individual development (Rogers, 1951).

Savickas's model, though developed in a modern context, incorporates essential elements of career coaching, such as the importance of the individual's personal history and the narrative approach to career construction. This integration highlights not only the historical importance of career coaching but also its continued relevance in contemporary approaches to career guidance.

However, the "Life Design" model has some issues, which will likely be addressed in another article you can find on the Blog.

Career coaching stands out by adapting its methods to the constant changes in the job market and individual needs. It recognizes that career paths are not linear and supports individuals in exploring and reinventing their career paths, a flexibility essential in today's job market. This approach allows for an in-depth exploration of career choices, considering external influences and the individual's internal dynamics. Career coaching offers more personalized and adaptive support. This approach is particularly relevant in a world where career paths are increasingly "non-linear" and where continuous self-assessment is crucial for career development.

Although personality-based methods have their place in career guidance when the data collected serves multi-directional exploration and is not the sole basis of the support offered, the contribution of practices like coaching remains the most relevant today.

Conclusion

Personality has unfortunately played a significant role in the history of career guidance at a time when it was more about insertion, and finding out what individuals were made for was an illusion to fill companies so that people were not too preoccupied with what they wanted to do. The only pertinent approach in guidance is one that remains centered on the individual, nuanced, personalized, and adaptive, especially in an era where current generations seek fulfillment, meaning, and passion in their professional activities, among other things. By recognizing the complexity of career choices and integrating various factors, we can better prepare individuals to navigate an ever-evolving professional world.

References:

• Holland, J. L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Rogers, C. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. Houghton Mifflin.
• Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The Career Psychology of Women. Academic Press.
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology.
• Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
• Fouad, N. A., & Byars-Winston, A. M. (2005). Cultural and Gender Influences in Career Decision Making. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
• Savickas, M. L. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Career Construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work. John Wiley & Sons.

Here's an example of a cover letter, in terms of content, structure, and the precision of the arguments presented. You should aim for something of this sort, even though using very formal words is not mandatory, since it should reflect your usual way of expressing yourself when you put in effort. It's up to you to provide the necessary details and adapt it, because the process is the same whether you are applying to a University, an Internship, or even a first job.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am very pleased to present my project to you today and am very enthusiastic about joining your program. After taking some time to reflect in order to write this letter, I believe that what has profoundly motivated my choice of this path is .................

I chose to enter the final year of STI2D with a focus on IT systems and digital technologies at the high school ………….. in ……….. (postal code), with the aim of pursuing a University Bachelor of Technology (BUT) in Computer Science. I have had the opportunity to study various BUT Computer Science programs and your program caught my attention due to its modules focused on new technologies and software development ....... (indicate here the essential elements that make this BUT special compared to others and why this is important to you).

The digital transformation, which both evolves uses and enables responses to them, seems to me to be the forerunner of future human and human-machine interactions, a social keystone that must be built and in which I fundamentally wish to participate.

I have had the chance to confirm this passion and apply my knowledge and skills during my schooling. I have developed personal projects such as a mobile application ... (indicate which one and specify the objective), a website ... (indicate which one and specify the objective), and reverse engineering, using languages such as ... (indicate for which type of project and specify the objective).

These experiences have strengthened my interest in software development and project management. I also discovered the pleasure I had in working as part of a team and solving complex problems. This represents a daily challenge for me that stimulates me and pushes me to surpass myself.

I have read many articles lately, too numerous to mention in this letter, and I have realized that my interpersonal skills, which I develop through my readings and interactions, are essential today in the IT professions, where teamwork is crucial, and interpersonal relationships within work groups are key to the success of projects, which must always be more inclusive. Rigorous, determined, and curious, I am eager to finally begin this university program and put to use this unwavering desire I have to invest myself and learn to achieve my professional goals, whether that means continuing my studies in computer engineering or entering the workforce directly as a developer or analyst, about which I am still undecided. (Ideally, one should clearly know what they want to do here).

Thank you in advance for considering my application.

Yours sincerely,

Choosing a career is one of the most critical decisions in your life. It can determine your professional satisfaction, personal fulfillment, and future success. In this digital age, more and more people are turning to online career tests to help identify potential career paths. While these tests offer some superficial benefits, they are highly controversial, not only among career professionals. This article explores some major aspects of online career tests, examines the advantages and limits, and highlights potential pitfalls, including paid tests. The article is presented in bullet points for easier reading.

Advantages of Online Career Tests

1. Global Accessibility: One of the major advantages of online career tests is their accessibility. They are available at any time, from anywhere, for anyone with internet access. This makes them accessible to a wide range of people, including those living in remote areas, to explore career options without physically visiting a career counseling office.

2. User-Friendly: Most online career tests are user-friendly and easy to understand. The questions asked are generally straightforward, and the results are often presented clearly. This makes these tests accessible even to people who are not familiar with complex career guidance concepts.

3. Affordability: Many online career tests are free, making them accessible to a broad audience. However, some websites offer paid versions of their tests, providing additional features or more in-depth analyses. And sometimes, users only realize this after completing the test, as with the "The Career Test" from thecareertest.org.

Limits of Online Career Tests

1. Simplified Results: The results of online career tests are often simplistic. They may suggest careers based on personal preferences but do not always take into account the realities of the job market, current skills, or specific professional opportunities. As a result, these results should not be the sole basis for making career decisions.

2. Lack of Personalization: Online tests generally do not consider all individual skills, experiences, and aspirations. The results are often generic and do not account for the unique factors of each individual. A person might thrive in a certain career, even if the online test does not suggest it, and vice versa.

3. Lack of Human Expertise: Online career tests do not replace the crucial role of a qualified career coach. These professionals can provide personalized guidance, consider subtle aspects of personality and skills, and help develop a realistic and desired career plan.

Pitfalls of Online Career Tests

1. Paid Tests and Lack of Transparency: While many online career tests are free, some websites offer paid tests. These tests may appear more comprehensive, but they do not necessarily guarantee better accuracy. Moreover, there are cases where websites are not transparent about initial costs or hidden fees. Users may end up with an unexpected bill at the end of the test.

   • According to a Forbes article, "It is essential to check the transparency of websites offering paid career tests. Some sites attract users with a free test and then demand payment for detailed results. Consumers must be vigilant and check the costs before starting a test."

      

2. Advertising Expensive Training Programs: Some websites that offer free or low-cost career tests have a business model based on advertising expensive training programs or online courses. Test results can be biased to push users toward these paid programs, even if they may not be in the users' best interest.

   • An article in The New York Times highlighted this issue, noting that "many career test websites are affiliated with schools, universities, or online training programs. They may recommend these options, even if they are not the best for the user."

      

3. Lack of Compliance with Psychometric Standards: Online career tests are not always created by professionals in psychology or career guidance. Some of these tests do not meet the rigorous psychometric standards required to reliably assess individuals' interests, skills, and values.

   • According to a Psychology Today article, "It is important to ensure that the test you choose has been created by experts in psychology and validated by independent research studies. Tests that do not meet these standards can provide unreliable results."

      

Additional Disadvantages of Online Career Tests

1. Bias in Results: Online career tests are often simplistic and may be biased. The questions asked can be limited and may not take into account the complexity of career aspirations. This can lead to inappropriate results for users, pushing them toward paths that may not align with their skills, desires, and well-thought-out goal setting.

2. Overallocation to Popular Careers: Some online career tests tend to steer users toward popular and well-known careers, neglecting less common professional options. This can lead to overcrowding in certain professions, potentially impacting job market competition.

3. Lack of Consideration for Personal Factors: Online tests typically do not account for personal factors such as financial issues, geographical or family constraints. The results may overlook crucial aspects of an individual's life that can influence their career choices.

By highlighting these disadvantages, it is important to remember that online career tests should not be the sole basis for career decisions. They can be useful but should be used with caution and in conjunction with other career exploration methods, such as discussions with career counselors or mentors.

Tips for Using Online Career Tests Responsibly, although I would advise avoiding them.

1. Complete Multiple Tests: Instead of relying on the results of a single test, it is advisable to complete several online career tests. Compare the results to see if they show similarities and consistent trends. This can provide a more comprehensive view of your interests and skills.

2. Consult a Career Professional: If you have doubts or questions about your career choice, consult a qualified career counselor. They can provide personalized guidance based on a more comprehensive evaluation.

3. Check the Site's Reputation: Before completing an online career test, check the reputation of the website. Look for user reviews, comments, and evaluations. Ensure that the site is transparent about costs, if any, and adheres to ethical standards.

4. Use the Results as a Guide, Not a Prescription: Consider the results of online career tests as a guide to explore potential careers but do not take them as a definitive prescription. Your career choice should consider your passions, skills, job market opportunities, and professional advice.

Conclusion

Online career tests can be valuable tools for exploring career options, but they have their limitations. Users should be cautious when considering paid tests, be aware of potential biases, and use the results as a tool for thinking about career paths that may not have been previously considered rather than as a final decision. Choosing a career is a complex decision that deserves careful consideration and the advice of qualified career professionals. Ultimately, career choices should be based on a deep understanding of oneself, aspirations, and job market opportunities.

This is work we can do together.

If you wish to delve into career tests-related issues further, I invite you to read my pamphlet "Career Guidance or The Art of Not Failing."

• 
  The academic and professional career guidance

  Articles and exploration of emerging methods

• 
  Teaching, education, and schooling

  Academic failure, giftedness, and general questions

• 
  Developments and projects of the national education system

  The evolution of the school system and the ongoing reforms

• 
  Perspectives on influence/manipulation

  Choice and critical thinking in career guidance

• 
  Interviews

  Press articles

Fact checking, a very fashionable term, is one of the tools at the disposal of critical thinking. It allows, in particular, to quickly verify the hidden face of a situation or the veracity of a statement. It has become indispensable today, whatever the subject.

This article is largely composed of an excerpt from the first part of my book where, as if we were not sufficiently influenced by our biases, I deconstruct a certain number of beliefs that influence our choices: “Overcome Influence And Thrive - The Career Change Program for Employees”. This will allow you to see how fact checking, even more than elsewhere, is essential in career change.

I will just deal with this subject in the form of concrete and real examples. As always, the amalgam or the simple bullshit is a formidable tool of misinformation and the time needed to correct them plays in favor of their authors who can say almost anything as long as they are not part of a scientific approach and their work will never be reread by a committee of experts in the same field, and that most people will not verify. This is also an effect of authority bias.

Authority bias is a tendency to overestimate the value of a person’s opinion because of their status, eloquence, type of argument, tone or image in relation to us. Many external elements can influence it, such as the tendency to repeat certain key phrases two or three times in a speech or presentation. It is a manipulative mechanism that contributes to producing an authority bias towards one’s audience. For example, Simon Sinek has understood this and uses this technique in his speeches (available on YouTube), which allows him not to have to justify what he says and not to argue, and many people make the mistake of believing him. I made an article about his method and what he says that you can find here Critical review of Simon Sinek Start With Why book and concept et Critical review of Simon Sinek Find Your Why, a dangerous method. In his videos, we can see the power of verbal and non-verbal communication, which means that when you say stupid things with great confidence and by using certain techniques of persuasion or manipulation, you can, on the one hand, forge beliefs, and, on the other hand, pose as a leader, some great heads of state have adopted these techniques throughout the ages.

Nowadays, we are witnessing a dramatic shift in the conditions under which authority bias appears towards the uncontrollable. I have not looked for any scientific work demonstrating this, but I think that simply by observing it, it is easy to see that we have gone from the imaginary status linked to the actions, the mediatization, the social status or the field of expertise of the individual at the origin of the opinion, to the simple fact of finding an interlocutor who expresses himself on the web. Posting content, in the form of an article or a video, would immediately establish the individual as a “Knowing” as long as he is able to explain, with relative mastery and sometimes even without arguments, a point of detail or his experience on anything.

Of course, this authority bias is exercised differently depending on the individual and the nature of their critical thinking, but I wouldn’t be surprised if at least 70% of the people on the planet suffer the consequences of this shift.

I would take for my first example the case of beliefs.

In the field of counseling, many concepts or attempts to explain problems are based on beliefs. When a belief limits you or generates ineffective processes, at some point, you have to question yourself, find another solution to finally make things right and solve the problem for good. But the problem here is that most of the time, as the speakers want to make your work easier and propose solutions that fit everyone, they replace one belief with another and finally you don’t question the one that replaces the first one! We will see together how this happens.

Let’s move very quickly to the example of a limiting belief, general to begin with, but which refers to the question of work, and which can be found in a PDF document on the site tccmontreal.com, accessed in 2020 :

 https://tccmontreal.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/chapitre-10-quelques-croyances-dysfonctionnelles-parmi-les-plus-frc3a9quentes-avril-18.pdf.

This belief and the advice given afterwards seem particularly ridiculous to me, but to illustrate my point it will be perfect.

Dysfunctional (and therefore erroneous and problematic) belief: “Human happiness can be achieved through inertia and inaction by allowing oneself to live passively.”

I’ve never heard anything like it before.

The detail they offer: “In the name of a so-called ‘quality of life‘, many people avoid getting involved in large-scale projects requiring long-term work or effort; they forget that it is most often by accomplishing or surpassing oneself that human beings obtain their most important rewards in life.

Examples:

—‘Getting married, having children? You don’t think about that, it’s way too much trouble! ’

—‘Going through college to get a degree in several years? I’d rather work and make money right now! ’

—‘Exercise, play sports, keep me in shape? It’s easier to watch TV! ’

"

Now here’s what’s offered instead: “Best-fit belief: Human beings are generally happier in life when they engage in activities to which they devote much of their energy and creativity. ”

We can summarize this statement without really changing its meaning: to be happy, we must devote our energy to a creative activity.

Really? What is the basis for this idea? Are these examples relevant? Are they sufficient to explain or validate such a thing? Does this work for any creative activity? Isn’t there another indispensable dimension like will, pleasure or sense?

Nothing that is said demonstrates anything.

Even if a study in psychology decreed such an absurdity, it would still be necessary to have access to it, to read it oneself, to criticize it and attack it from all possible angles, to read the critical opinions of other eminent psychologists on this study, to verify in an empirical way its validity at least.

Why shouldn’t I be able to be happy in idleness or in complete meditation if that makes sense to me? Why am I being told how to be happy? Does this imply that if I were happy in idleness or meditation, reading this sentence would call that happiness into question? Would I still be able to do it afterwards?

It is a form of influence and manipulation.

So of course, you can choose to adhere to fashionable beliefs, but you should have sensible reasons for believing in something if you want to approach some truth/reality in your existence. I assume that living in illusions and denial is not what you are looking for.

Nowadays, articles, books, conferences and certain theories based on belief systems are derived, at best, from a snippet of a conclusion or a tiny part of a research summary, sometimes with a twist, without questioning the research in question for a moment, nor taking into account the existence of research that would prove the contrary, or other professional criticism.

I’ll give you a concrete example of this a little later.

We live in an era where almost everyone can express what they think freely, it is the jungle of ideas and theories and it is especially the jungle of beliefs.

Beware of foolish beliefs being replaced by even more foolish ones.

So fortunately, we are all already vigilant and obviously do not believe just anyone on any subject. That said, many self-proclaimed specialists or experts can influence us more easily, thanks to a better media coverage or apparent reputation. They are then in a clear position of “supposed to know”, a psychoanalytical term that refers to the trust factor. You are more likely to trust someone who is in a position of knowledge, which reflects the image of a competent professional, at least to you.

This supposedly knowledgeable subject criticizes one belief while proposing another, you let your guard down, and that’s when he replaces that belief with bullshit, as in the example above. I remind you that this example comes from a psychologists’ blog.

Unfortunately, many world-renowned professionals are also guilty of this.

Here is an example, also taken from a passage in my book where I am deconstructing most of the things people focus on when choosing a new career horizon instead of focusing on meaning and pleasure:

The question of salary is often central in orientation or reorientation, it carries meaning, it contributes to defining our value symbolically, whether we like it or not, but it is obviously not enough to give meaning to work. At least not in the long term.

If that doesn’t give meaning to one’s work, at least not on its own, what is left? The correlation with happiness.

Money makes you happy is a well-established belief, and this, despite all the scientific studies on the subject relayed by the press, let’s dig.

Bolles, Richard N. What Color Is Your Parachute? 2020 (p. 99) tells us about the following study to explain the fact that money does make one happy. This study was published in the American journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and it seems to contradict, in part, the proverb that money does not make people happy. Conducted by Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, and his colleague from Princeton University, Angus Deaton, the study is entitled: High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. It focuses on the well-being of 450,000 Americans surveyed in 2008 and 2009 for the Gallup-Healthways index.

If we stop at the title alone, the study speaks of the impact on the evaluation of one’s life and not of happiness! And then it would be essential in this study or in Bolles’ book to define what happiness is, but this is not the case.

Bolles gives us this analysis: “the less money they made, the more unhappy they tended to be, day after day. No surprise there. And, obviously, the more money they made, measured in terms of percentage improvement, the happier they tended to be, as measured by the frequency and intensity of moments of smiling, laughter, affection, and joy all day long, vs. moments of sadness, worry, and stress. So, money does buy happiness. But only up to a point.”

So it reads word for word: “So money buys happiness. Up to a point. ”

This has also been written in these terms in the press.

Yet, in the authors’ abstract, we read: “We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being. ”

This means that having a good salary increases your PERCEPTION of having a SATISFACTORY life, but NOT HAPPINESS.

It is related to our beliefs and the stories we tell ourselves.

We can also read in the summary of the study: “The question of whether ‘money buys happiness’ comes up frequently in discussions of subjective well-being in both scholarly debates and casual conversation. The topic has been addressed in a vast and inconclusive research literature.

In other words, we have not yet been able to prove that there is a link between money and happiness.

And yet, it appears that this is so deeply rooted in our beliefs that even authors and works of the reputation of Bolles’ book, which in no way defines its quality, apparently demonstrate this and thereby reinforce these beliefs.

And without a critical mind, without going to check the study by yourself, you get fooled. Or at least things are distorted, twisted differently.

To be able to affirm that money makes happiness, one would have to compare individuals with the same character, the same personality, the same desires, ideals, values, the same situation, the same job, the same house, a wife and children with the same characters, behaviors and problems, ditto for work colleagues and their bosses, and everything else. I’m sure you understand what I’m getting at.

You can’t isolate a variable like salary in a controllable way and be able to draw a meaningful generalization from it like, ‘people who earn more money are happier.’

Critical thinking and fact checking are your two best weapons against all the nonsense you will read here and there, on guidance, career transition, guidance methods, but it is very time consuming. Cleansing our brain of all the bullshit we have accepted to believe would take a lot of time, if not impossible. On the other hand, if you do this work for any new information, and you accept to stay on something like ‘it’s not sure’, you will gain. I confess I don’t understand this allergy to uncertainty. Of course, it is about reassurance, but I find it more reassuring to accept reality and therefore uncertainty than to take beliefs for certainties.

Fact checking on beliefs does not stop at the small world of guidance and the pursuit of happiness and it is increasingly vital to apply it to everything we hear or read in our daily lives.

To remain conscientiously skeptical and to remain on uncertainties will not save you from anxiety, but from an illusion.

As we discussed in the article “Can we control our choices?” that I invite you to read first, a choice is an undefined mixture of emotion and reasoning that is totally dependent on the context and the type of choice to be made. To simplify, a choice is mainly the result of emotions and processes that we do not control, combined with more or less thinking conscious and unconscious.

We make many unconscious choices all day long. You also make some choices that involve conscious reasoning, whether it is a choice you have to make in the moment, or a choice you have to make later.

In order to rationalize a choice, it is necessary to implement a voluntary reflection. It is essential to have as precise an idea as possible of what one really wants and to be as objective and rigorous as possible in the nature and elaboration of the arguments but also in the evaluation of the consequences, and finally to accept them.

You are invariably looking for the most acceptable compromise.

Making a choice is, above all, choosing a consequence.

We can dissociate certain contexts:

• To make a choice alone, which engages only us, including in its consequences like choosing a strawberry or vanilla scoop in its ice cream cone.
• Making a choice alone, but one that has consequences for others, such as a career choice.
• Making a choice together, where it is a search for compromise so that the consequences suit both parties in roughly equal and acceptable proportions such as an amicable divorce or the choice of a vacation destination.
• Making a group choice, more or less large, and/or in the same principle, the consequences will be accepted by the majority as the election of a mayor or a president of the Republic.

Whether you have to make a choice alone or with others, the problem is the same: to identify objectively and realistically the consequences of this choice and ideally, to focus on facts, tangible elements rather than opinions and to ensure the development of a clear argumentation on which a consensus can be ratified.

In pairs or groups, you will have to agree on the different arguments and their order of importance in order to reach a consensus on the evaluation of the consequences.

I’ll come back to this later, but for now, let’s focus on the different situations you may find yourself in.

Of course, this is going to bring up some scenarios that may relate to your choice of career direction, but I’m going to keep it general enough to fit in with a global approach.

Several cases of figures thus:

1. You may be faced with a choice when you don’t know what you want.
2. You may be faced with a choice when you think you know what you want.
3. You may be faced with a choice to make when you think you have to choose between one or more of the options already identified, but you may not be sure that you have completely covered the issue either.

Your degree of rationality when making a choice is limited by your thinking, frame of reference, knowledge, experience, education, convictions and beliefs, influence, representations and cognitive biases, at a minimum.

Your emotions do not have a control center as you imagine it. They are the result of millions of years of evolution, but also of your experience, representations, etc.

Pure rational choice is impossible.

Here is a suggested process to follow in order to make the most intelligent and reasoned choice possible.

1. Identify all the components of the situation and the elements to be considered.
2. Develop arguments on each of the defined points (regardless of the number of people).
3. Critique the arguments and then make a constructive criticism of them, assessing their meaning or interest in the context of the choice to be made, their objectivity and their value by defining a scale from the most important to the least important.
4. Verification that we base ourselves on facts and not on emotions or impressions.
5. Verification of the intellectual honesty, the dynamics in which the choice is made. Am I acting in good faith and what is at stake in this decision?

I will clarify each item on the list with the intention of being as simple and understandable as possible and then I will use the example of choosing the right training. I chose this example because my main readership being parents, it is important that these topics have a concrete application to facilitate conceptualization.

To define what you want and make a choice, you must, of course, study the problem. You can’t make a rational choice without information, so this process aims to go deeper into the situation, to help you clarify what you want and finally to make an informed and most rational choice.

I mentioned above, you must first know what you want and be sure of it. That’s part of the process. No matter what scenario you find yourself in.

If you have already made a choice, but still have doubts, the best thing to do is to start the process again, especially if you can’t answer clearly or with relevance to these few questions and others that will come to your mind: What are you basing your decision on? Are you basing it on an impression, a piece of advice, an article? How serious is this source? Is this source indisputable? Why do you think you want this? What is your goal and why? etc.

1. Identify all the components of the situation and the elements to be considered.

It is a matter of listing everything that you consider should be taken into account in your choice, by broadening your thinking as much as possible. You have to go deeper into the subject to understand it better, then do more precise research, if needed, on some elements, on the state of science and in particular on the existence of a meta-analysis, which is the highest level of scientific proof. A Cartesian approach, certainly, which should not necessarily be limited to, but which cannot be ignored. Secondly, consider the consequences of your choice, its implications, for you and possibly for other individuals or goods depending on the context.

Choosing a vocational course:

The prerequisite as I said is to know what you want to do for a living, what job you want to do.

You will also need to identify what you want from your training in terms of learning or specialization.

You will need to define selection criteria including how you will compare them.

Finally, list everything you need to consider: program, specialization, cost, transportation, distance, duration, accommodation, country, how often you want to see your family, food specialties of the area and what you will do with your pet.

2. Develop arguments on each of the defined points (regardless of the number of people).

The point is to argue about the real importance of taking into account the elements you have identified.

Choosing a vocational course:

• A random point: Maximum cost of the training

Fact: My parents can finance a training course for me at a cost of USD 10,000 per year all inclusive.

Sample reflection and argument development: Should this be a criterion for choice? Do I have other financing options? Have I asked one or more banks about their terms for a loan to finance my education that I will pay back when I am in business? Am I willing to do this? What are the risks? etc.

After all these questions: what final decision do I make on this point and why?

3. Constructive criticism of the arguments, their meaning or interest in the context of the choice to be made, their objectivity and their value by defining a scale from the most important to the least important.

Choosing a vocational course:

• One item: Opinions gathered on the training or school/university

Fact: 2 people interviewed at an education fair booth or open house, raved about this training.

These opinions influenced you.

That said, should you consider them? Is their source reliable? How can you verify it? Have you verified the information given? Are these the students most likely to give a good picture or have a convincing speech? Did they offer any critical thinking, any real bad thing mentioned? How much weight will you give this element? Can it be considered at the same level as other elements and why?

A special note on the level of arguments that are too far from the problem and the issue to offer a relevance that would require dwelling on them, as for example: you are reorienting yourself and changing university and your argument is: “I chose my last training for its program and I was disappointed, the program should not be part of my main choice criteria. ”

Obvious sophistry and argument that have no other interest than to have you make an error in judgment. Above all, it is necessary to really analyze the program study you had done and make sure that the next study is very thorough to remedy the problems experienced.

4. Verification that you are basing yourself on facts and not on emotions or impressions and that nothing was forgotten.

Once you have done this work on ten or twenty arguments, you will have to review everything. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t listen to your intuition or your feeling about an element of this or that training, but it is necessary to dissociate feeling and reason, and to try to determine where this “impression” comes from, how you explain it and what place you think you should give it.

5. Verification of the intellectual honesty, the dynamics in which the choice is made. Am I acting in good faith and what is at stake in this decision?

When you choose a training course after having chosen a profession, because choosing a training course is NOT choosing a profession. First you choose a profession, then the training that will allow you to train for it as you wish.

In many families, the choice of university or school is made in consultation with parents, who have taken a certain “place” in the thinking process.

These are some examples of questions you can ask yourself to check your momentum and ensure your intellectual honesty in the thought process.

Is it my choice?

What state of mind am I in when I make my decision? Are there external elements that influence it?

Do I want to please people? Do I want to impose my decision or to be the one to decide by putting aside certain arguments? Am I in a power struggle with my parents? If so, why? Have I been honest in defining the consequences of my choice? etc.

Remember, a choice is a compromise with yourself or with others, there is no ideal choice and even less a purely rational one.

This process, far from being ideal, seeks to allow you, if you follow it, to considerably increase the rationality of your choice and to have a clearer vision of some of the reasons for your choice.

I hope this will help!

I chose to write this article because I have long been aware that many clients make temporary or definitive choices that they sometimes find difficult to explain and we often find ourselves having to deconstruct elements that were based on perceptions, beliefs, etc., revealing a lack of reflection. As we will see, there are many explanations for this phenomenon. Education is the first of them, thinking, analyzing and reflecting is learned, and on the other hand, the brain naturally tends to make instinctive choices.

I’ll stop you right here, our relationship to life is not only commercial, fortunately, I won’t deal with this issue from a marketing or only influence point of view, because the act of buying is a specific process that is not at all the main point here and because a choice involves emotions, therefore they are inevitably influenced. I have decided to approach the question of choice in its globality and without compartmentalizing the approach in the manner of economics, psychology or philosophy, which would be far too reductive for such a complex phenomenon for which having indisputable proofs seems impossible. It is for me totally absurd, whatever the approach, to want to normalize, categorize or predict a choice according to predefined parameters or a priori consensual scale of value, each individual having his own history, education, values which affect his emotions and evaluation criteria. This should not necessarily be taken as irrationality, since a choice is by nature subjective. Nor should we forget the great disparities in the analytical or reflective capacity of individuals, as can be shown by an IQ test, even if this is not totally representative.

We are continually led to make choices, which in everyday life are more or less important, and almost automatic, as has been shown by cognitive psychology research. There are also less trivial choices with important repercussions or costly personal investments, such as choosing to adopt a dog or buy a new car.

During a career coaching, the importance and impact of the choices that will be made lead one to wonder even more.

Faced with the question of choice, the individual is perpetually confronted with questions such as what is the best choice? Did I make the right choice? How can I be sure that it is the right choice? How can I make the right choice?

Or by taking more distance on this problematic task:

Isn’t a choice simply a matter of compromise? Can we consider that there is an ideal choice?

We can, of course, approach such a subject from several angles, two in particular that come immediately to mind, the philosophical angle which would try to answer all the above questions, and the practical angle i.e., what can I do to make an intelligent rational choice?

A rational choice means to make a choice of reason which for the larousse dictionary means: the faculty proper to man, by which he can know, judge and conduct himself according to principles: The reason considered by opposition to the instinct.

I will first define what it is and then I will focus on the pragmatic aspect, because I think that it will be beneficial for the reader, even the informed one, and this will be the subject of a second specific article.

I differentiate between two main families of choices, even if we could perhaps start to break down the problem according to context, cultures, etc., I will try to keep it simple and accessible without overcomplicating something that is not of fundamental interest in the context of this article, because it is not a matter of understanding exactly what is at play in making a choice, scientific research is still trying to do that, but rather of defining how to make an intelligent and sensible choice and to do that, you need to know some principles.

We can dissociate two types of choices.

We have the choices:

—Dictated by emotion and whose rationality is unconscious or little worked by the conscience.

—Dictated by emotion AND reason.

Our choices are naturally derived from our emotions

I consider that a purely emotional choice is no longer a good choice, even when it comes to surviving. The following examples are from real life:

• I think of the individual who dies after a fight over a car space in a parking lot.
• I think of the individual who dies trying to pull his daughter out of the bathtub while she is electrocuted by her cell phone that fell into the water.

Media reports are full of examples of individuals who have made inappropriate emotional choices.

I will not attempt to detail the possible causes. The nature of a pure emotional choice has a distant origin and has been developed and refined by the brain over millions of years to ensure human survival in conditions and contexts that have nothing to do with our current social and technological life. A reality that many individuals do not manage to apprehend in all its globality and complexity, or even simply lack knowledge of the mechanical, physical or physiological implications of the technologies and tools used on a daily basis and appropriate responses to situations that may arise. Caught up in the action, in front of the urgency of a situation, the reasoning and the speed of reflection are of no help to prevent the error. Adaptation has not been able to do its work, because it is slow, while these last 300 years have profoundly changed human life.

Our emotional system could not adapt in such a short time.

We are emotionally handicapped in relation to the world in which we live. Others are also socially handicapped, unable to adapt to the complexity of society, in part or in whole.

This is to be associated with the lack of scientific knowledge of the average individual, of the system to which he belongs.

In short, our primitive brain at the emotional level must evolve and take into account a complex, changing world, of which it knows little and without the necessary knowledge to react as it has been accustomed to do, that is to say in the immediacy, with relevance.

Science has shed some interesting light on the cognitive phenomena of decision-making. To make a long story short, recent studies in cognitive psychology have shown that the brain tends to make choices based on emotion, very quickly, and that reason does not intervene, or intervenes very little and often unconsciously, in many everyday choices.

A choice of reason, under control of emotions.

We are victims of our emotions, influenced by far too many things that most of us are not even aware of on a daily basis and that we cannot control, even when, like me, you are closely interested in these issues, and if you were not convinced, I invite you to remember the fifty or so different cognitive biases that influence emotions, reasoning, representations and beliefs, among others.

In this context, it is not difficult to consider that even a rational choice is biased.

If one were to define a rational choice as an ideal or perfect choice, then it would be necessary, a priori, for the individual to have all the information necessary for his choice and to have understood it perfectly, for this information to be true and validated by a meta-analysis (the highest level of scientific proof/validation) and for this information to be of such a nature that it could not be called into question by subsequent discoveries. This last point is automatically problematic for many works in the social sciences and humanities. It is therefore also necessary to have the assurance that this choice has not been influenced and that no bias has come to alter it.

I think you’ve figured out that it’s perfectly impossible.

Therefore, making a choice is a compromise, a preferred option over another one, the consequences of which are probably uncertain and we have to live with it.

An ideal, perfect, objective, rational choice is not something that can be achieved by the human brain.

However, even though in some contexts the consequences may be uncertain and a choice may be considered to involve a degree of risk, making a reasoned choice is choosing consequences.

Since it is impossible to grasp all the implications and consequences, one may even wonder whether the ideal choice is a realistic notion.

Many sociologists, psychologists and philosophers have been studying this question for a long time and there are, of course, important disparities in the ways of approaching the problem and I must propose here a collection of them for the reader in the form of a quotation, quite long since it is an article which traces the authors who are for and against on the question of the real rationality of choices. I’m citing only one source because to be honest I’m lazy right now and it’s a good one. I only cite one source because, to be honest, I’m lazy and it’s a source that fairly accurately reflects diverse opinions on certain aspects of the issue.

This is a French article, titles and description have been traduced.

Rational choice: the pros and cons (no date) Humanities. Available online: https://www.scienceshumaines.com/le-choix-rationnel-les-pour-et-les-contre_fr_26957.html (accessed: February 26, 2022).

“Pros: George C. Homans (1910–1989), American sociologist, applied the principles of neoclassical economics and behaviorist psychology to the analysis of social facts. His theory of ‘social exchange’ made him one of the first propagators of the theory of rational choice in the social sciences (Social Behavior: It’s elementary forms. Under the general editorship of Robert K. Merton, 1961)

Herbert A. Simon (1916–2001), a psychologist and sociologist specializing in systems, developed a general science of decision-making. Among other things, he developed the notion of ‘bounded rationality’, which takes into account the fact that our decisions are not perfect, but limited by the information available to us. H. A. Simon contributed to exporting the rational choice model to political and social sciences, but he made its use more complex.

Pros: Gary Becker, born in 1930, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1992, has adapted the tools of neoclassical microeconomics (postulate of the rational actor) to activities that are not part of the market: family (having children, divorce), delinquency, drug addiction, etc. His theory of human capital (1964) makes him an advocate of rational choice.

Pros: Stephen Levitt, born in 1967, is a professor of economics in Chicago. A specialist in microeconomics (individual decisions), he published in 2005, with Steve Dubner, a book (Freakonomics) in which he shows the calculations underlying all sorts of crazy facts, such as cheating in Sumo wrestling, in an orientation close to that of Gary Becker. Tim Harford, born in 1973, is also a proponent of ‘freak economics’ (The Logic of Life, 2009).

Against: Daniel Kahneman, born in 1934 and winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics, and Amos Tversky (1937–1996), a Stanford psychologist, have collaborated for more than twenty years on experimental research into the heuristics and cognitive biases that affect our choices and often make them less than rational. Their prospect theory (1979) turns its back on the theory of rational choice. Together with Richard Thaler, born in 1945, they are considered the founders of behavioral (or experimental) economics.

Against: Raymond Boudon, born in 1934, professor of sociology at the Sorbonne, has developed in his work the idea that the theory of the rational actor is incapable of describing human action in general. The individual has good reasons to act, but these reasons are diverse and subjective. Moreover, the aggregation of individual actions can produce ‘perverse effects’ (Raisons. Bonnes raisons, 2003).

Cons: Jon Elster, a Norwegian philosopher born in 1940, has devoted most of his work to exploring the difficulties we have in acting according to clear preferences. He has analyzed the tactics we use to fight against the weakness of our will. According to him, the human actor is often unable to decide between two preferences (Irrationality, 2010).

Cons: Dan Ariely, born in 1967, teaches at Duke University. A mathematician and psychologist, he then turned to experimental economics. Considering all sorts of subjects from ordinary life, such as having a coffee at Starbuck’s, he shows that our choices constantly violate pure rationality, but also that our drifts are predictable (It’s [really?] me who decides, 2008). ”

I think I have covered the main points of what I think needs to be considered without going into too much detail, and I will leave the reader with the range of opinions of some sociologists and psychologists who have looked at the question from a certain angle, because far be it from me to go into detail on a subject on which it is difficult to consider being able to reach anything other than an imprecise and fluctuating representation depending on the context or a point of view.

If you have a choice to make and need some help with a framework, please read my article on How to make a more rational choice?

Pessiglione, Mathias. « Décision et rationalité : un sujet indiscipliné », Cités, vol. 60, no. 4, 2014, pp. 29-41.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of some indicators that I have quickly put together for parents that will allow them to identify that the school is not taking care of their gifted children as it should and is not adapting its methods and supervision. This is despite the fact that the national education system claims to do everything possible to support them according to their needs and the recommendations of specialists.

Of course, nothing dispenses with having a good knowledge of the specificities of your gifted children, particular or shared. I therefore encourage you to get information and training on the subject, as this is probably the best way to accompany your child serenely and intelligently into his adult life.

It is not a question of defining how many indicators you need to take into account to be sure of the situation and determine if your child's needs are known, taken into account and provided for.

It's about using common sense, because not everything is necessary and just because you identify a few things in this list doesn't mean that your child is not being properly supported.

As you will see from some of the indicators, it is necessary to know your child's specificities, but above all his real level of knowledge, especially in the different subjects, which invariably involves personal work, on weekends and during the vacations, via revision books and exercise books allowing him to progress at his own pace and to set himself challenges. This will allow you to know the overall level of his knowledge and to compare it with what is offered in class in order to evaluate the extent of the gap.

These indicators are not ranked in order of importance.

You will find some indicators that may seem redundant, but I wanted, or at least I tried, to make sure that they allow a faithful representation of certain cases.

If you notice any omissions, please send me a message so that I can complete the list.

• The teachers will tell you about the heterogeneities of most gifted students, if you dig deeper you will have the opportunity to see that they do not clearly understand what they are talking about and paraphrase the psychologist out of context.
  
  
• Discussions with the teacher(s) show you that his specificity is not understood since nothing in the discourse refers to it or presents elements of differentiation that should be highlighted. This is one of the best indicators of the degree of knowledge on gifted children's specificities and the knowledge and implementation of the most relevant accommodations.
  
  
• If the teacher complains about lack of attention or that he is hyperactive and can't stay in place.
  
  
• If the teacher penalizes the presentation of the work or the neatness of the assessment or exercise rather than simply encouraging him to do better.
  
  
• If the teacher ignores issues related to the assignment, lacks of clarity, precision and misunderstanding leading to a false result.
  
  
• If the teacher doesn't give the student anything specific to do that will allow him to go deeper into the exercise when the student has finished before the others.
  
  
• He does the same exercises as the other students, well below his real level. You know this level because you have assessed it yourself through homework. For example, in primary school, he is asked to do a one-digit multiplication without a carryover using the table, whereas he knows how to do five-digit multiplication with a carryover without needing a table or a draft.
  
  
• He takes the same assessments as the other students.
  
  
• The practice of taking assessments is different, notably by giving priority to oral questions when necessary.
  
  
• The evaluations or the notations do not seem to take into account the possible redundancy of the exercises or their extreme simplicity which could explain a lack of interest and a bad answer.
  
  
• The evaluations do not take into account the errors of comprehension or misinterpretation of the instructions while the concept is assimilated.
  
  
• He has the same homework.
  
  
• He exactly the same program and at the same speed as the others.
  
  
• He is not offered any further study.
  
  
• He does not have a specific timetable.
  
  
• The meaning of what is learned is not explained.
  
  
• He does not attend any other class.
  
  
• The teacher does not create level groups within the class.
  
  
• The teacher does not give him/her a role as a tutor to another student.
  
  
• He is not offered any specific support, possibly with the help of a supervisor who would come specially to the classroom a few days a week to help him with certain tasks or exercises.
  
  
• Exercises and homework, week after week, are repetitive, and the student is made to repeat many times what he already knows how to do.
  
  
• The teacher does not favor memorization strategies that rely on sense or logic.
  
  
• The student's skills or knowledge are not taken into account, for example in math, even if he has the level of a higher year level, he is made to do the exercises of the level of the class in which he is registered.
  
  
• There is a discrepancy between what the child tells you about his friends and what the teachers say. The teachers feel that the child fits in well with the group, while the child complains that the others do not want to play with him or that he is excluded from the groups. This can show Lack of supervision or discernment, because they have not understood his difference and the need to be very attentive to his emotional well-being.
  
  
• The teacher does not encourage him, admonishes him, only expects him to do better.
  
  
• His creativity and intuition are not rewarded: in math again, if he knows the result in his head and does not explain his reasoning, this will not be valued by the teacher. (The problem of relation to the norm, the need to conform to expectations). This must be valued and at the same time he must be encouraged to play the intellectual game of transcribing and breaking down his reasoning, as if he had to explain it to someone else.
  
  
• The teacher does not encourage work on understanding the subject and remains above all anchored on the acquisition of knowledge and its faithful restitution. (rote type.)
  
  
• Only one class jump is proposed.
  
  
• Quarterly assessments show that concepts are not acquired even though you know they are (must be validated on your side by the student's personal work and exercise results).
  
  
• The said assessments do not offer any written explanation indicating that the teacher is aware of the limits of this assessment and the assessments on the acquisition of knowledge.
  
  
• There is no consideration of affinities or buddies for class composition.

I encourage you to be measured in the evaluation of all these indicators to ensure that you are basing your observations on reality and not on impressions...