Subject:
|
Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:01:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
706 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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 subjectivity in what is a crime and what is not -
> in fact that's a good foundation to work from, it is possible for a
> large population to have sufficient agreement on something which is
> subjective such that the subjective measure is useful).
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, the ramifications of each personality type are likewise
determined by the whim of Myers-Briggs. Finally, the way the series of
questions is assigned significance relative to the various acronyms is also
determined solely by Myers-Briggs. I'm not saying that "crime" isn't a
subjective concept; I'm saying that it has its grounding in centuries of
tradition and general agreement, whereas Myers-Briggs is a project of
acutely limited scope and history. If Myers-Briggs is shown, after many
many decades of use, to be an accurate predictor of personality type and
achievement, then I'll recant. Until then, I'll stick to my guns.
Another example to consider is psychoanalysis, a pseudoscientific art form
now almost 100% debunked because of its subjectivity (and generally poor
track record). In fact, that's a much better example, because "crime"
doesn't purport to evaluate a personality. Rather, a "crime" is an
infraction of existing laws and social conventions, and the prosecution of a
crime is based as much as possible on facts. By comparison, Myers-Briggs is
an evaluation of a person based on subjective and unverifiable criteria and
wholly divorced from facts (other than a low-value "fact" such as "It is a
fact that I believe X").
> I don't think this makes it useless to categorize though. What is
> important is to understand the tool and it's limitations.
For my money, it is useless to categorize in this way because these
categories are themselves so subjective as to be useless. It's not a matter
of "did he or did he not steal the apple." It's "does answer A plus answer
C plus answer F equal Personality Type X?"
> Should I stop eating chocolate because the fact that it's almost my
> favorite flavor is subjective?
Do you have to take an artificial test to establish which flavor is your
favorite? The more precise way to ask the question is: "Do I think that
chocolate tastes good simply because the Myers-Briggs test tells me that I
think it tastes good, or do I enjoy the taste on its own merits?"
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
