Subject:
|
Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 02:40:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
809 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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?
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 tool.
> 2. Do we just not bother trying to understand different personalities
> because we have no objective measure?
Hmm. Well, I suppose the search for understanding has merit in its own
right; after all, we don't know the "objective measure" of my car's velocity,
but if I run through a camera-monitored redlight, I'll be sure to get a ticket.
We could better gauge the accuracy of Myers-Briggs if we had some kind of
independent evaluation of the test itself, rather than testimonials as to its
accuracy. If the test were able to make predictions with greater specificity
than "you get revitalized by a party atmosphere" (which I recognize is a
caricature of the true response), then we'd have some yardstick by which to
assess the test.
> 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.
Now you're talking! I don't think that Myers-Briggs meets this criterion,
but your point is good. Maybe, to answer your question, we need not be aware
of personality "types" so much as personality "traits." I find slogan-ish
summations to be be far too limited to be of any use (ie: "he's an intuitive
extrovert"), but to have a sense of someone's mental pressure points and a
general idea of the person's likely response to certain kinds of situations?
That would be useful.
Of course, by necessity we all do this with our friends and close
acquaintances, otherwise every interaction would have to start from scratch!
Even in this forum, you probably have a basic idea of how I--all but a stranger
to you--will react to several of a variety of topics, and I have the same sense
about you.
> Everything I've seen suggests the MBTI has at least some value in
> predicting response.
This may be our sticking point. I just don't accept that the MBTI has
sufficient *specific* predictive power to merit undue reliance on the test.
Glancing through the acronyms, I can honestly say that I fit five or six of
them with near-equal precision; do I have five or six personalities? It seems
more likely that the definition of each acronym is sufficiently vague to
encompass a range of personality types--enough to make any user say "hey,
that's me," but simultaneously enough to discredit the test when exposed to
critical examination.
While we're at it, why doesn't the test have a section for "Dangerous
Psychopath on the Verge of a Homicidal Spree?" All of the acronyms describe
the same kind of generally positive templates that one would find in any
similar New Age list of personality types.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | My3ers Briggs chatter (was Re: Is this)
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
