 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Yikes! If you're suggesting that, based on my definition, I am allied with the corporate world, you have either misread my intent or I have miscommunicated it. Or perhaps I'm again misreading you. (...) Now I think perhaps you _are_ (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Ah, now there's where I'm concerned-- you added an extra qualifier to "decisive". Useful vs. Non-Useful (Dubya-esque). Each is still decisive, no? What's the 'decisive' element, minus the 'usefulness' qualification? (...) Hm. I guess that's (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I still don't agree that "structure" and "meander" are reasonable opposites except in some interpretive, poetic sense, and in this regard they forfeit their use as scientific tools of assessment. Looking at the Myers-Briggs test, I can't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | Let's cut right to here: (...) Ok, that's fine. I think its a "pretty right" tool, you think it's 100% useless and wildly inaccurate, save for entertainment purposes. That's fine. But keep in mind that *neither* of us has proof either way, being (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) But I don't need proof; I'm not the one trying to profit off of the test. (By the way, I can't confirm the correct spelling. While researching it, I've found "Myers" and "Meyers" with about equal frequency, so I'm flummoxed) Because the owners (...) (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Well, here's the juicy bit. It's sort of like a Christian believing in God. You can't disprove it, they can't prove it, but they have what they feel is evidence, based on "a feeling" or "an intuition": With me, I'm pretty gosh-darn indecisive. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) This is part of the problem. You're implicitly assuming that the test is a valid instrument, and that therefore the only way to disprove the validity of the test is to take the test (which is designed not to yield falsifiable results) and make (...) (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Not really-- because as I've said I've seen what I believe to be evidence of it yielding *correct* results. And, as I've said, it IS (for my part) falsifiable, because if I had measured someone (say) as indecisive, and they took the test and (...) (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | -snippity- (...) -snipity- I've been following the debate for a bit here, but I'd say this is the core of the problem. Psychology is not a pure science like physics, chemistry, etc - and therefore does not operate on the same basis of scientific (...) (20 years ago, 31-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) So is it respected, or not? The test is indeed used as a predictive tool, so if it does not function in this capacity, then it should be abandoned. But your wife is correct--the tool has no predictive power because its predictions are so (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | Some of my thoughts on Meyers-Briggs: I have taken this evaluation twice (though I'm not sure if either time was the real evaluation and not just a quick evaluation). The first time I came out INTJ (though very close to the middle). The second time (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) "Deliberately" general? Got any empirical proof? :) I wouldn't say it's useless at all, except insofar as it IS error prone. If its category divisions are indeed correct (I'd say they seem to be), they may indeed help us understand how people (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Koudys
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> the (...) <snip> (...) Hate to intrude... From my experience with NB from back in college, I recall that there are usually an equal number of questions to help define each personality (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Well, it was designed, was it not? And presumably the designers made deliberate choices to include some results and not others, right? QED. (...) Sure, they *may* do that, just as tea leaves *may* tell you who you're going to marry. Let me (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) Hmm, I've never seen it used or marketted in that way. I've mostly seen it used as a self exploration tool, and perhaps a tool for understanding one's co-workers a bit better. Frank (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, I have the sense that this website is somehow connected with the M/B test: (URL) the site is replete with purchasing opportunities. Similarly, this website is run by the owners of the Meyers-Briggs instrument, and they seem more than (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Hm. Here's a question. Let's say that some old kook of a witch doctor uses tea leaves to predict the names of who his clients will marry (or perhaps clients ask who "friend X" will marry). The leaves predict 49,928/50,000 people's marriage (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm sorry, but this hypothetical example doesn't interest me. Suppose I posit a car that delivers infinite gas mileage--wouldn't you buy it? Heck, yes! But what's the point? It's not difficult to create examples that have no relation to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, I think it's results are more useful that a lame "Bob's a great guy." In some ways, I wonder if the greatest value isn't in the actual results, but in understanding what the different categories are supposed to be and that people really (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I used to have a friend who gave herself a tarot reading at the end of each day to help her assess her day's events. If it helped her focus on her life in a productive way, then that's fine, and there's no harm in it. If the cards (ie, the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If someone is rated as ISFJ by the test and as ENTP independantly by 100 psychologists, I'd call that pretty falsified as far as the test procedure itself. The categories themselves on the other hand, that's indeed another issue, and not (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That would be true ONLY if the test did not allow for tweaking. Because it allows for post hoc manipulation, your objection does not apply to this shortcoming. (...) In the absence of other evidence, personal testimony is not sufficient to (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But it only allows for manipulation by the testee, which is why I changed the example. In this case the testee might have initially TESTED as an INFP, and changed their mind to ISFJ, only to be contradicted by the 100 psychologists. Plus, (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's actually untrue, based upon the statement by the test's owners. (...) Before I answer, I have to ask what's the point of this hypothetical? We're back to the Infinite MPG car; it doesn't exist in reality, so comparisons between the car (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Now that's a suprise to me-- Let's say I adamantly insist I'm a P, not a J, so when I test as a J, I manipulated it to be a P. But 58 psychologists rate me as a J, so if you compare my results against EITHER P or J you're right either way? (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: **snip all of that, yours and mine** Let's start afresh, because we've veered into abstract neuro-epistemology that I don't think either of is qualified to address. However, I've been thinking about the (...) (20 years ago, 4-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Heh, phew! (...) Awesome! That's what I was looking for. That although you may not accept the CURRENT data you've seen as accurate, that you WOULD be willing to accept data, even though it runs at least SOME risk of being subjective, that (...) (20 years ago, 4-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) Awesome. The only question that remains is "how much of a 'great deal' of accuracy is needed?", and to show whether or not M/B does or doesn't follow. (...) I think we've agreed on that from the start-- I would argue that while SOME job (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Bob Parker
|
| | | | | | (...) Personally, I would take any of these observations! :-) Bob (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Patient readers may recall the extended exchange that DaveE and I had back in November or so regarding the Myers-Briggs Testing Instrument. Suffice it to say that we were, in the end, of surprisingly like mind; I objected to the test's use in (...) (20 years ago, 28-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
