 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
