Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:44:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1981 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > I don't know that the theist/atheist metric is significant in this context. I
> > judge myself to be quite decisive, but I don't judge my decisions to be
> > absolute or unchanging.
>
> How would you define decisiveness, then? The speed at which you make a decision?
> I guess I'd say that if you either admit you could be wrong, or actually do
> change your mind frequently enough, you're less decisive. But that's just the
> semantics game.
Hmm. Upon reflection, I see that I was inferring a value judgment where perhaps
you didn't really imply one. It sounded, to me, as if you were making
"decisiveness" a positive attribute, so that "more decisive" was more positive
than "less decisive." It seems now that this wasn't necessarily what you meant,
so I may have been off the mark.
I guess I'd define decisiveness as the ability to respond quickly, effectively,
and with flexibility to changing situations.
> > > Anyone know any Meyers/Briggs analysis that cross references religion?
> >
> > Ugh. Can we omit this jungian divining rod from our discussions? As a
> > predictive model, Meyers/Briggs enjoys about the same level of success as
> > palmistry or entrails-reading.
>
> I honestly don't really have any experience *other* than M/B (not to be confused
> with MB, the evil clone brand), which actually described me pretty well, as well
> as others I took it with.
The whole problem is that it describes *everyone* well because it uses such
generalities as to be at least partially applicable to anyone.
A useful test would be to give the test to a dozen or so people and then
randomly distribute the results among them (while asserting that each person has
actually received his own) to see how "accurate" they perceive those results to
be. I'd guess that most people would find the test to be basically accurate in
describing themselves, regardless of whose results they were actually seeing.
Alternatively, you could test a dozen people and then let them try to identify
their results from among the dozen, and see how accurately they can match their
results to themselves.
It's basically the same as a horoscope or numerological reading; the claims are
so non-specific that any result can be applied ad hoc to any test subject.
> Is there a better metric floating around out there? Or
> are all personality tests doomed to failure given the nature of the human
> mind not to fit into nicely pre-determined boxes?
I don't think that all tests are doomed to failure, but to date no test has been
conclusively demonstrated to correlate accurately and specifically to the
personality it purports to measure. The designers of the test, and many who've
taken the test, assert that it's accurate, but that's subjective testimony and
shouldn't be mistaken for objective evidence. The famed polygraph "lie
detector" suffers from similar shortcomings; although it may accurately measure
pulse, respiration, and galvanic skin response, there is no objective evidence
to correlate these factors conclusively with lying. Along the same lines, the
"penile plethysmograph" is similarly poorly correlated to what it claims to
test.
I misspelled "Myers" in my last post as "Meyers." My apologies to the owners of
this trademarked instrument.
I don't care if the average person wants to use play with this test as a
harmless little diversion, since it's no worse (and objectively no more
effective) than tea-leaf-reading or other forms of divination. However, I do
object to its use in the workplace as some kind of yardstick to assess the
individual's management potential, or somesuch. There is no objective evidence
that the test is an accurate measure of personality; therefore to use the test
as such a measure is as absurd as consulting a Ouija board before
hiring/promoting a person.
As an aside, I note with interest that the Myers/Briggs test doesn't include a
result for "dangerous sociopath on the brink of meltdown." Every result is
generally positive (or at least generally constructive) and therefore generally
likely to yield a "hey, that's me" response.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Ha! If anything I would be implying the opposite! :) I'm trying my best not to place a judgement on being "decisive", though :) (...) Heh, yeah, that's how the corporate & political worlds love to define it. All the good, none of the bad. (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) How would you define decisiveness, then? The speed at which you make a decision? I guess I'd say that if you either admit you could be wrong, or actually do change your mind frequently enough, you're less decisive. But that's just the (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
53 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
|
|
|
|
