Subject:
|
Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:40:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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.
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 personalities
because we have no objective measure?
I guess there's a third question (or maybe a 0th question) of whether we
need to categorize personality. I suppose in one sense we don't, we
should treat each person as an individual. On the other hand, I think
it's darned useful to have a general idea of the type of personality
someone has so I can gauge how they might react to any particular
stimulus.
Everything I've seen suggests the MBTI has at least some value in
predicting response. I guess what would be interesting would be to take
several people who are very familiar with the MBTI and who are also very
familiar with a large group of people. Have them assign MBTI types to
each person based on observation. Then have each person take the MBTI,
and compare the results. If there is little or no correlation, then I'd
be happy to throw out the MBTI. If there's a significant correlation,
then I'd say there is some use to it.
On the other hand, its useless debating the value of subjective things
with someone who doesn't value them. I've seen just as silly arguments
over the relative worth of various foods. Should I stop eating chocolate
just because one particularly outspoken friend doesn't like it?
Obviously no. I'm comfortable in the same way at saying that if you
don't find the MBTI useful, then don't use it. Personally, I find it
useful (and I was quite a skeptic going into it). I don't give it
unassailable faith though.
Frank
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
