iWAM: an arithmetical comparison

iWAM: an arithmetical comparison

Each person is unique!” is a commonly heard expression. Nevertheless, MBTI categorises the whole world population into 16 profiles. With Radar iWAM we are able to create as many profiles as there are people born on the world. How can we do this?

We are often compared with instruments like MBTI and other instruments based on the model of Carl Jung. Of course there are similarities. Each starts from the idea that people are not the same and from the idea that others don’t necessary think as you think.

There are real differences with instruments like MBTI which has been in existence since the second world war. First of all, MBTI works with 4 patterns. From this you can have 2 to the power of 4 that is 16 boxes where all people must fit. Radar iWAM, on the other hand, uses 48 parameters.

With this you have 2 to the power of 48 that is 281.474.976.710.656 possible personal descriptions. If we start from the point that there is a world population of 6.878.952.000 people, it means that a unique description can be produced 40.918 times the number of people. If you then know that, according to a calculation in 2002, there have been a total of 106, 456, 367, 669 people born on earth, then this means that with the “boxes” of the Radar iWAM each person that has lived on earth can be given 2644 unique places.

If that is not enough, we also take the context into account. This means that we take the a priori view that each person behaves according to where she/he is and to whom he/she relates.

With this excellent resource of information one can – using the Model of Excellence (automatically) calculate statistics and qualitative analysis – then focus on the parameters that really count in your concrete situation. In this way you can combine a virtually unlimited diversity with goal-orientated simplicity. A tailor-made model of excellence identifies the common attitudes, motivation and work strategies of your top performers and explains how these differ from less or underperformers.

For more comparative material you can go to: