 | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —Frank Filz
|
| | | (...) I think we have to understand when subjective measurements are being used, but I don't think we need to reject them. Food preferences are totally subjective, but should someone ignore them because they don't have the objective data on why they (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) But that's the whole problem--the so-called "personality types" are as subjective as astrological assessments or phrenological readings. And so are the criteria that make up each "type." (...) Trouble is, you can usually discern when you're (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) It may be a good start to discuss what people think the differences between Introvert and Extrovert Intuitive and Sensing Feeling and Thinking Perceiving and Judging Though, looking at it now, it probably isn't because even these global ideas (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Deeper and deeper... In an English course a few years ago we discussed that bane of rational thought: Postmodernism. In a clever ploy to make PM seem like the thing to be, the author of one of our texts assembled list that I will paraphrase: (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) Now here's a debate I'm so moveable on is not really funny--my girlfriend, taking the courses at the Institute of Christian Studies, expounds the ideals that come with PM--that there is literally no one "right way" of doing (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure that I'd say the test is arbitrary. If we are to discount any subjective things, then there is a lot which totally falls apart (for an example related to the original post in this thread, demonstrate to me that there is no (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) The question of what is and what is not a crime is determined by (in many cases centuries of) tradition and by societal consensus. The question of what is "INFP" and what is "ENTP" is determined by the whim of Myers-Briggs. For that matter, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) Ok, two questions: 1. Is there any method of understanding personality in a way which allows one to make guarded generalizations that you feel is sufficiently objective to be useful? 2. Do we just not bother trying to understand different (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) A fine question! Off the top of my head I'd say that too general a framework (as I perceive Myers-Briggs to be) isn't much more useful than no framework at all. As you've correctly stated, the user needs to be aware of the limitations of the (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | My3rs-Briggs waste of time (was Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?) —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | ENOUGH already! This thread, as usual for many in .debate, no longer has a DAMNED thing to do with the Subject. If you are going to continue this tomfoolery, at least continue it under a new Subject, so people can easily set it on Ignore. I was (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | My3ers Briggs chatter (was Re: Is this) —Erik Olson
|
| | | | If you have questions about the test, READ THE BOOK it was originally published in, or one of the others (see note). Go to a library. It's good for you. The terms used in the test are defined in the book. The type indicator is not a general theory (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
