Psychotherapy and Applied Psychology: Conversations with research experts about mental health and psychotherapy for those interested in research, practice, and training
This show delivers engaging discussions with the world's foremost research experts for listeners interested in or practicing psychotherapy or counseling to provide expert insights and practical advice into mental health, psychotherapy practice, and clinical training.
This podcast provides valuable insights whether you are interested in psychotherapy, an applied psychology discipline such as clinical psychology, counseling psychology, or school psychology; or a related discipline such as psychiatry, social work, nursing, or marriage and family therapy.
If you want to learn about cutting edge research, improve your psychotherapy/counseling practice, explore innovative therapeutic techniques, or expand your mental health knowledge, you are in the right place.
This show will provide answers to questions like:
*How will technology influence psychotherapy?
Psychotherapy and Applied Psychology: Conversations with research experts about mental health and psychotherapy for those interested in research, practice, and training
The Predictive Power of Interests with Dr. Terence Tracey
Dr. Terence Tracey returns to the show nearly a year after joining Dan on the first episode of the show!
Dr. Tracey discusses his journey as a psychotherapy researcher, focusing on the development and application of circumplex models in psychology. He explains the significance of vocational interests and how they predict success in various fields. Then, Dan and Dr. Tracey cover the Personal Globe Inventory, a tool that Dr. Tracey co-developed, and the implications of gender differences in vocational interests.
Special Guest: Dr. Terence Tracey
The Personal Growth Inventory
Gender Differences on Interests
💬 Click here to text the show!
🎞️ Video version of the show@PsychotherapyAppliedPsychology on YouTube
🛜 Check out the website: Listen to every episode on your podcast player of choice
Connect with Dan
☏ Leave a voice message on Speakpipe
🔗 LinkedIn
📬 TheAppliedPsychologyPodcast@gmail.com
🦋@danielwcox.bsky.social
[Music] Broadcasting from the most beautiful city in the world, I'm your host, Dr. Dan Cox, a professor of counseling psychology at the University of British Columbia. Welcome to episode number 49 of Psychotherapy and Applied Psychology, where we dive deep with the world's leading applied psychology researchers to uncover practical insights, pull back the curtain, and hopefully have some fun along the way. If you find the show interesting, it'd be much appreciated if you shared it with someone you know we might enjoy it too. It's a great way to spread the word and keep the conversation going. Today's guest was the very first person that I spoke with all the way back in episode number one. When he was kind enough to be my first guest, I told him that if a year from now I was still doing the podcast that I'd have him back on the show, and here we are one year later. I couldn't be more excited to welcome back one of the world's authorities on interests. My guest is a professor emeritus of counseling psychology from Arizona State University, the former editor of the Journal of Counseling Psychology, is a fellow in the American Psychological Association and the American Educational Research Association and is one lifetime achievement awards from the Society of Vocational Psychology and the Society of Counseling Psychology. In part one of our conversation we discuss what interests are, the predictive power of interests, the personal globe inventory, sex differences in interests, and much more. This episode starts with my guest responding to my question about how we got into studying interests. So without further ado, it is my pleasure to welcome back my very special guest, Dr. Terence Tracey. I started out as a psychotherapy researcher. I did many years of research in that and that was kind of my daily life. I had as a graduate student done one or two, maybe three studies with other people on interests and I thought, "Yeah, how mundane, who cares?" But I was a therapy researcher and that's what pretty much, I continued that, but all of my early research and what got me tenure was therapy research. But as I expanded in that, I started looking at all of it was pretty much interpersonal-based so I looked at the interpersonal model. In psychotherapy. In psychotherapy. And one of the things that is a circumplex model. So I started to look at and study how to assess circumplexes, what they mean, how they work. Can you give us just real quick on what a circumplex is? Circumplexes is a circular arrangement of types in two-dimensional space. So the interpersonal circle consists of two dimensions. You kind of have a dominance dimension, dominance of missing, and kind of affiliation dimension. Friendly versus more hostile. And all behaviors can be categorized as some place in that two-dimensional space. And so the theory rests upon things that are closer together in this space are going to be more similar. And so that's why to validate that, you have to be able to demonstrate that interpersonal behaviors are arranged in a circular structure. And so I became kind of conversant in the methodology of circumplexes. How to test them, what they mean, how to look at them, how to think about it. And there are surprisingly a whole bunch of circumplexes in the psychological literature. Vision is a common example. But the other vision, would you say vision? Vision, yes, vision is a range that I'm circumplex. How so? Sorry, that's how we perceive it. If I had visual effects, I could show you, but I don't have the visual effects. And yes, we tend to perceive reds and purples as very similar, even though if you're looking at their measurement, they are opposite of the hurt scale. One's at one end, one's the other end, but when we go into perceptions, they kind of come back around and are viewed as more similar. But the other prominent one is Holland's model of vocational interests. He talked about it as a hexagon, but that really is a circumplex model. And so what I started out doing was with one of my colleagues at Illinois looking at Holland's model using these circumplex models and assessing how well the circumplex fit a lot of these data that existed because no one had really done that before. And we did some initial studies in looking at that across a wide variety of things. So basically, I got into it because of the method. And then I started to apply it to some of my questions for psychotherapy. I made a lot of assumptions about how people work. And then I kind of did the whole circumplex thing and started to apply it to personality to kind of help validate some of these underlying assumptions. So then I did a whole lot of stuff in the personality realm. And then I did stuff in the interest realm kind of validating these. And then I became interested in just the assessments themselves. Developing validating measures of personality and developing validating measures of interests. And I've kind of continued that. I got several measures out there. So that's kind of where I got started into it. And it kind of took it off. Also, I was doing psychotherapy stuff all the time. And it's hard doing psychotherapy stuff. One, you have to get the data, which is very difficult to get. And then the other one is the stuff I was doing was actually going in and rating actual interchanges between people. And that's hugely expensive in terms of time and effort. And so it struck me as kind of wonderful that, I don't know, you can give out self-rating forms. And it's easy to do. You just get a bunch of people together and you give them a questionnaire. How cool is that? So that was also somewhat appealing. So what are interests? Like what does that mean? Interest mean a lot of different things. And there is some maybe a lack of clarity and literature, depending upon what subfield you look at. But basically we're talking about vocational interests. And people think that translates into, well, how much do you like this job? Yeah, but really kind of comes down to much more basic things. How much do you like different activities? So it just refers to basically everything in your life. How much do you like hammering nails? How much do you like writing papers? Just basic things that we all do. These, so there are millions of these things and they can be categorized using these models of vocational interests. And then when we apply them to vocations themselves, that's where they become the vocational part. But they're basic interests that cross everything. And so in terms of there was. And it had these interests have dominated the field of vocational psychology for quite a while. And in reaction to that, maybe in the past 15 years, a bunch of people have been claiming that there is no validity to these interests. They don't really predict anything. And they would either state this as a common conclusion, and they'd use this to justify whatever else they were proposing instead. Or they would cite one or two studies that kind of correlated interest to some sort of outcome. And actually one of these is a pretty famous I/O study. And they found interest don't predict much. But if you look at the study, it's kind of like, well, of course not. No one ever said interest predict the thing. What everyone says, hypothesis theorizes is the match of interest to the environment is what's predicted. So if you have very investigative interests, why is that going to predict anything? It's not unless you're in an investigative field. And so these people just correlated interest didn't find anything and dismissed them. So in response to that, there have been a wealth of studies, some of which I've done kind of longitudinal ones looking at interest in large samples of college students to 300,000 people. And finding that the match to classes and the match to majors really is predictive of a wide variety of educational outcomes. Predictive of entry into those fields is predictive of grades in those fields is predictive of persistence in those fields and predictive highly predictive of graduation in those fields. And also satisfaction. To an extent far above that yielded by standard ability measurements like SAT or AC. So the match is important and that matters. Again, my colleague Jim Rounds did a nice meta-analysis a few years ago doing the same thing with matching in occupations in the working world. Same result. The matching is much more predictive of anything, including big five measures. So these are obviously very important things. These matter. And people kind of view them as kind of a whole hung, but they're probably among our best measures of predicting success in a variety of fields. So me working in a field or studying in a field that's consistent, congruent, similar to matches my interests. I'm going to be more likely to be successful on a whole host of outcomes both within the field and in my life in general. So you can apply that also in some research and applying this just the life tasks and hobbies you have and things of that sort. So yes, you're going to be. So your interests kind of guide you to choose certain things. You're going to enter those things. You're going to spend time at those things. You're going to kind of spend more time than if you weren't interested. And what we know also from development is your skills are going to get better in those things. And since you're better at doing them, you're going to start liking them more. And it's kind of a very much of a self perpetuating process. Right, I can see how you get a sense of mastery, right, which is a lovely feeling. I don't know, I've never gotten it. So I think maybe it would make sense, you know, you've developed or co-developed a number of measures for these sort of things. But probably the personal globe inventory, I think is probably your most. The one you're sort of most associated with or the one you sort of, that's most. You played the largest role in developing and maintaining and developing. I think there are three versions of it. Yeah, there's kind of well actually there's about four. Okay. And, you know, there's a. So it's got. I could kind of do a whole pitch about it. It has a different model than kind of Hollins, although it incorporates Hollins models. So it can yield Hollins scores. But it basically consists of three dimensions instead of Hollins two. So Hollins reassets model realistic investigative artistic social. Enterprising and conventional. They're arranged in a circle. And circles are two dimensional. So you also can define that by the two dimensions, which are people things roughly. Or versus S or S versus R. And then data ideas, which is so the ideas part is the. A and S or I and a versus. See any. And so that's what because some of some people who be listening will totally be familiar with the reassign model. Some people will probably have little to no background. I think for most of the sort of facets of it, it's pretty intuitive. What investigative means, what artistic means. Maybe the two that folks would be less familiar with what they mean would be the realistic. And the conventional, I would guess people might be a little. And I'm even I throw in investigative one of my complaints about the reassign model. And so basically the basic model is Hollins summarization interest. All these millions of things can be arranged on a circle. And all Holland did was kind of. Circle different areas of that circle and glomped them together. Clusters six clusters around this. The problem with it is, you know, six clusters. The gotta be pretty big. The capture a lot of the circle. And so he came up with names that kind of categorize these things. And since they're so big, he had to come up with some pretty god awful names. I mean, realistic. To the uninitiated, it has no meaning. Is it so am I pollucinating if I am not realistic? And so really it captures a wide variety of things that kind of working with one's hands, liking to deal with things that are concrete. And liking to see things. So it's pretty much a real world kind of approach. That covers a lot of stuff. So realistic. I was, I was, I was, I was, I was, I was explaining realistic as like you were like to work with things physical in the real world. This is where, you know, whether it's people in the trades, but even like engine. I mean, you guys, there's lots of different branches of engineering. But you know, the sort of the stereotype of the engineer, right? You want to like the physical things, the mechanic, the actual, you know, hands on touching, manipulating hell. Even the sculptor probably would, I would imagine. Well, it's sculptor, but then gets more into the artistic, right? Right. Right. Because they're kind of how it's done and what about it. But yes, and a realistic kind of engineer would be kind of a civil engineer. They're building roads, they're building bridges, they're doing stuff. And electrical engineer would be much more investigative. Wow. Because there's much more theoretical. It's much more, I can't really, I don't want to touch it all. And so you arrange these, you're sort of saying that these things are on these, this continuum. So one end of the continuum is realistic. And then what's on the other end of the continuum? The other dimension, yes, the people things. So realistic is at one end of this circle, the other side is social, the people dimension. So that's, that's the people things. So it's really social people versus realistic things. And that is where the sex differences or gender differences come into play. Okay. So before we dive into that, so you sort of arranged it. So you have those things or really things on one side, people are social on the other side. Then what's the other? Data ideas. So data are kind of hands on things, but not kind of as physical as kind of a realistic thing. So here we have people who like to kind of deal with say, just kind of data. If I were thinking about occupations like accountants and things like that, dealing with kind of money and those numbers in that context. So it's, there are kind of some physical things there, but it's not quite as hands on physical as like realistic stuff. And the other idea, the other extreme is the idea side and that characterized by investigative and artistic. Both of these are very, if you will kind of a theory, they're in your, a lot of it's in your head. And so it focuses on ideas. Again, you have a problem with investigative when I first heard that, I'm going so is this police work? Is that what this supposed to be? Not supposed to be scientific work. But he chose a name that was broad enough to cover a lot of things that to the uninitiated have no meaning. I mean, yes, artistic and social self explanatory, the rest of them have no meaning. And so one of the things that do with the PGI instead of using six clusters, I used eight clusters and are much more internally consistent in the names kind of make much more sense to the someone who doesn't. I mean, how this model makes a lot of sense after you've worked with it for a while. But, you know, if I just took it, yeah, I'm not going to grasp a thing. So one of the, as far as I read, one of the major contributions other than sort of re, you know, configuring on these two dimensions. Is you added this third dimension. So it goes from two dimensional space to three dimensional space. So instead of the circle, we're dealing with the sphere. And it was kind of a surprise. The first like early work with Jim Brown's is where we kind of discovered this. We did, you know, a lot of analysis of, again, circumplicated. So we got a lot of interest data. And while there are a few issues there, one is, you know, a lot of people would factor it and they get all kind of strange stuff. And then we kind of figured out why interest data have a very large general factor. That just means people vary in terms of how they use the scale. Some people are much more critical and use a low end. Some people use the high end. And I could talk a lot about what that means. But if you don't take a can of that. Strange stuff is yielded by your factor analysis, particularly because then they rotate it and come up with crap. But if you let that there, then after that you get two very clear dimensions, people thinks that ideas in circumplex appears. So that's some of our earliest work of kind of testing and validating circumplex models because a lot of people back then were saying, they don't exist. In the process, however, we found consistently a third substantive dimension. And that was prestige when we didn't understand it at first. But people also respond to how much they like different levels of difficulty is really what is capturing. Do I like tasks that are difficult to do or do I like tasks that are simple to do. And so at some level, people were capturing that separate from people things that ideas. So it was kind of that in a sense, kind of a challenge factor. And you call this prestige. Because it was originally was highly correlated with the procedure of occupations. So if the scale was occupations, it was highly correlated with that. But then we found it still existed when we gave out activities. Say what you mean by that. So okay, so one of our forms was we asked people the items were, how much do you want to, how much do you like doing what a, how much do you like. Civil engineering. How much do you like being a sculpture. How much do you like, how much do you like this occupation. And so there we were clearly get a dimension where very high prestige, you know, this, this third dimension. Kind of captured the prestige of those occupations. And we thought, well, okay, that's nice. Maybe it's just an artifact of people reading occupations. themselves. So then we gave out measures with activities. I like hammering nails. I like doing sculpture. And we found it still came there. And so we got a little what is it. And then so we also then correlated with a bunch of other perceptions about what these activities were. And we found out that people were rating two things. How hard it was. So in other words, the difficulty of it. So how much talented I need to do it. And also how much effort did it take. And so both of those kind of made up this third factor. So things that are just naturally difficult or things that took a lot of effort or a combination of both. Those were things that were high. And then things that were low, you know, and things, you know, relatively easy things. And so it's kind of capturing, you know, when I talk about this kind of. If you will, the the opposite is kind of a chill factor. I don't want to knock myself out. Versus I'm really attracted to things that really test me. And that's kind of what we were capturing now. So it's interesting listening to you explain this because as you're explaining it, I'm thinking about it differently than like, you know, when I think for both people when you initially hear prestige, prestige that, you know, you sort of think hierarchically. And maybe that holds up as well, right? So still there. Yes. But it's like my, I guess perhaps part of it's just like the motivation or the thing that I'm attracted to is the thing that I'm attracted to. The what I would think of is like the the prestige, the notoriety, the, you know, the wow factor of the, oh, you work as that. That is prestige is versus the difficulty or complexity factor. Right? Sort of like my interpretation of that is it feels different hearing you explain it. Well, I think it once kind of an outcome and once kind of a process. Right. Generally, if I'm attracted to difficult things, I probably am going to wind up engaged in prestigious sort of stuff. Because I'm going to be sticking with it longer. I'm going to be working through it, you know, and that's that generally kind of is the outcome. So you'd look at, say, predicts prestigious occupations. These people have put in a lot of work and a lot of time in terms of getting there. And certainly, you know, I can think of myself and many others. Many of us kind of go, I'm not going to knock myself out that much. Yeah, sort of thinking about people in my life. You have very, very skilled talented people who sort of they want to go to like, you know, work is the means to an end. Work is, well, I got to work to support myself, my family, whatever, but I just want to, I want to go, I want to do my job, whatever it is. And then I want to go home and rights. That would be sort of a low prestige as we would think about it. And then there are others who like, no, I want my work to consume me, even if it is within the nine to five. Right. I want to be, I want to be challenged. But when I'm at year 10, I want to be challenged by new things. I don't just want to be on autopilot or other people really do want to be on autopilot. Yeah. And I think that, you know, neither of those is really a value judgment. Right. Right. It's just sort of like, oh, it's just to, yeah, no, different people kind of view it differently. And that's what this is trying, this is capturing some of that. Do you have any sense of folks motivation? I mean, I'm sort of thinking of myself. And I think for me, because like, you know, this gig would be on the higher end of the prestige, the prestige continue, and I would say as like a professor, particularly probably to research intensive university. I think that probably, you know, for me, I think it's probably both that like, there is a bit of, you know, that I do want to be challenged, not every day all the time. But if I was just going through the, you know, the routine, I would, it would be, you know, I would get depressed if it was just like doing the same thing every day. Right. I want to, but then there, so that's part of it. And then also part of it is also, you know, serving my vanity. And even doing this, right, doing a podcast, there's a bit of like wanting, you know, sort of like wanting to be on the stage and wanting people to know who you are and that sort of thing. Do you have a sense of, you know, on average, which one of those motivations lead people to the prestige prestige? That makes sense when I'm asking. Well, okay. So, give it to me. So they're, give me your two again. So one is kind of, yeah, give me your two. So one is just the natural challenge of the work. Yeah. The other is the more interpersonal component of it, which is wanting people to perceive you as saying, oh, that's a fancy job. So what we're kind of measuring. And it could incorporate both, but where the scale is more directly measuring. The kind of more intrinsic, liking of the challenge, liking of the things of that sort. To some extent, that may be difficult to separate from kind of the outcomes or interpersonal processes. So I might be liking the challenges because it also gets me this other stuff. So I don't, I can't say that it doesn't do that, but I think it's kind of a natural offshoot of it. Just by asking them, because what it does correlate highest to is again, effort and difficulty. Right. Right. Okay. So why don't I have a bunch of questions here about getting, but why don't we jump into sex differences? Okay. And perhaps before we enter this conversation, we could sort of meditate on, are we talking about what's the language here? Are we talking about gender? Are we talking about sex? Is there, you know, door number three that we should be using? What's the language we should be using to have this conversation? Well, you know, again, I think it's if we, it historically has been viewed as sex going back to some of the early days of interest assessment. And that really, you know, the strong had two forms, pink and blue. And they were different items and different occupations. And so that's kind of they just do, yeah, these are, they're different. I think, yeah, no, and that kind of comes down to, are we talking about sex? We talking about gender, I really think it's gender, but that also comes down to the extent of are these differences to the extent to which are they universal? Are they genetic? What we do know about, so in their art, clear and straightforward things, and it also gets very confusing when we start we as a society have started to think about gender as not binary. What does that mean in these contexts? It's kind of an area I have desperately wanted to kind of study. And I think the field is getting closer to where it can, you know, large part is you need numbers. And that's kind of been kind of the biggest constraint. But now with the really the scope of doing things on the internet, numbers are within our grasp. I think the larger issue is definitional. Non-bimary is a kind of amorphous category that's not at all homogeneous. And so I think that we need to, and I've been talking to some people about how, how can we think about this, what can we do, but I'm also retired, so I'm not going to be doing all that. But I think if we could start getting some better definition breaking down non-bimary rather than just a catch-all, we could really start understanding some more. So I see that as an area which would be real exciting coming up, but we're not there yet. Or I'm not there yet. So what we're talking about here is really kind of a binary definition because of Enaticwies definition and sample size. And it really comes down, you know, and that's why people use sex and gender mixed. It kind of comes down to where they think these differences come from, or the universal, or the genetic. And so I, maybe I could come back to that. Let me first talk about what these differences are. So in kind of a binary way, this was notice a long time ago, the people, things to mention, realistic social, is the biggest by far difference between men and women of any psychological variable. Any psychological variable. It has an effect size of about, well, there's a very nice state that's done not too long ago. By Sue, she kind of put the effect size at point at co-instee of point 9-3. That's immense. And depending upon measures, it range from point 6-7 to 1-point 6-7. Just to give you an idea, some other meta-analyses on the estimate and effect size of the big 5 found that in general, yes, there are sex differences on gender differences on all the scales, except extroversion. But the two biggest were neuroticism at a d of point 4 and agreeableness at d of point 3. So those are the biggest things we have. And they pale next to people versus things. And all the research that looks at any variable, these are the biggest. So these are some pretty big things. And just for the audience, so a D, so what Terry is talking about is the, basically it's in standard deviation units. Yeah, so it's kind of a standard deviation, if you think about it, that's so clearly what that indicates is a lot of overlap. But these are huge differences between these two groups. So these effect sizes are monstrous. And you don't find that for much of anything. So, okay, so you got this big thing. So what? And this is where it becomes kind of interesting is if I give out these interest tests, and interpret them to people, what am I doing? I mean, some of the concerns are so fighting. So for example, some of the tests say the self-directed search, which is probably the world's second most common assessment and strength behind my favorite, myres breaks. Note the sarcasm. Yes, that was the sarcasm. And 80 to 90 percent of the women taking integrals, taking it, come out with S. Now, think about this. You know, we have been doing a lot of thinking about as a culture and society, about sex roles and what that means. If I tell all these people that their interests are S, they're going to look at fields that kind of RS types, teaching, social nursing. And in some sense, we are propagating the unequal distribution of occupations. And some of the fears are we are prematurely closing the door for girls to look at anything else by giving them these tests. Because they're all going to come out with S. And these are, and you know, so also the argument is these are propagating the status quote. And well, I guess depending upon your view of the status quote, that could be good or bad. But clearly it could have that effect. And so these are some big things. And so it these cause many people to advocate banditing them because of the potential arm. And it also led to one of what there are some nice controversies in this field. One is whether or not you should sex norm or gender norm instruments or not. And this would this, so it's a big debate between John Hound and Dale Prediger back in the 70s and 80s. It was nasty. But it basically came down to if you norm these scales within gender. So you give girls scores relative to other girls. That not as many are going to come out with S because you're comparing it with it. If you don't do that, you just compare it to all everybody. All the girls are going to be S. So the argument was if you sex norm, it may not be the most valid in terms of applying to the external world, but it's going to have a higher effect on getting people explore other options. So just real fast. So for sex norming, so if I'm a girl, then it's telling me my interests relative to other girls. And because girls are elevated in social and lower on realistic, it's going to. So among girls that have say a secondary realistic score, this will put them real high, right? Because relative to girls, I am among the highest in terms of realistic things among girls. But if we don't sex norm it, then that's where you get to 80 to 90% of the girls who take this. Those kiddos are going to see themselves as they're going to be social number one. So if I sex norm, I am going to kind of increase the exploration of options for the girls. But if I don't do that, the role is going to be S. And so that was a debate. But the counterpoint to that, which was Holland's, is well, you know, that's well and good. But it reduces the validity of the test itself. So if I am going, if you're going to go into an occupation and even though you are highly R for women, you get into an occupation with a whole bunch of R men, you're going to feel very out of place. Because your scores are much lower than the men there. And there's some that validity to that too. And so now all scales are either sex normed or not. And users need to know which one they're using and interpret it appropriately. I personally think sex norming is fabulous. Younger people, you want to expand options. But as someone gets closer and closer to actually choosing an occupation or entering an occupation, they already think you might want to ease off of that more towards kind of not sex normed. Where do they kind of get a feel for what that occupation is actually going to be? But early on, I think you want people to expand as many options as you can. And so that would be an appropriate use of testing early. So earlier when you were talking about interests being correlated with a whole bunch of outcomes, is that based on might not be so clear? But the question is, does that correlation vary depending if it's sex normed or not? No. No, it's still going to be the same. But it's just whether you're norming it or not. Because you're basically taking the scores that they have and correlating it. So generally, you're not correlating the norm scores. You could, but you're going to get the same thing. Well, but if so, let me back up here a little bit. So if I'm right, if I'm 19 years old, and I'm a girl at a woman at a university, and I take this and use it, and it influences my choice in terms of my major, that if more of course speaking in generalities here, but that that could, if it's sex normed, then it's going to, you know, sort of damp in, you know, and let's say I'm a medium. Yeah, the validity is going to be down a little bit. So I'm, I might choose a, again, if I use this influence my decision, I might explore or choose a major that is further on the realistic side of the ledger. Then if I'm, that if it weren't sex normed, where it might be more on the social side. Yeah. So then it would seem to me that for that person, that the sex normed one, that the, that I would be less likely to choose a major that I would succeed in, that I would enjoy, that I would, but then if it was not, not a sex normed one. That's the validity issue. Yes. So basically, if I'm using it sex normed one, the validity is going to be a bit lower, because of these issues that you're talking about. I'm going to be in with one of these super duty bars, whereas I'm a medium or. Right. And yes, and the tests vary by that, but even still the validity is pretty high. So a lot of the stuff I was talking about with regard to the looking at the studies I did with higher education. That was using ACT data. And their, their interest measure is sex normed, pretty good, developed it and he was the one, he was, he in Holland went at it. So there was very valid even with that. So yes, you're going to get it. It's not going to be quite as high. Right. I mean, I think so that sort of again, getting to what you said earlier is sort of, where you're sitting, maybe moderately uncomfortably, is for earlier age folks that you want to, you want to expand options. You want them to consider to explore things. Right. You want them to take that class, right, or do that after school activity, or what, so you want to expand so they can see if they enjoy it. Where if you're dealing with a 37 year old whose needs to make a decision and really, you know, you want to get them in a position where they're going to feel or comfortable, it's going to align with their interests. So, you know, it's less about expanding in some ways and more about. Let's practically get them into the field that makes sense for them. Yes, let's expanding more magic. Yes. Okay. So of course, this immediately gets to the question of, are these interest differences hardwired or are they learned? Let me know, no one's going to be able to answer that. I don't think in the next 50 years. That's a wrap on the first part of our conversation. As I noted at the top, it'd be much appreciated if you spread the word to anyone else who you think might enjoy the show. Until next time.
