Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:13:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2192 times
|
| |
|
|
Let's cut right to here:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> I understand that your claim is that you perceive the test to be useful for
> making general assessments about personality types, but that doesn't really
> concern me. Honestly, I think you're mistaken; the test makes no useful
> assessments in any verifiable way, but that's your business.
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 that personality traits
aren't nice little empirical facts.
> However, I've stated outright several times that people are *welcome* to use
> the test for themselves, and I'm not very interested in that debate.
> Instead, I'm arguing that, because the test is not a reliable instrument of
> prediction or evaluation, it should not be used for making determinations re:
> professional or governmental employment. That is how the test is marketed,
> and that is why I object to its use.
That's also fine. And I'd argue the exact same thing.
My original point was that it would be interesting to see if there was a study
with Myers/Briggs relating personality types to religiousness. Not that it would
prove anything, not that it could predictively determine someone's
religiousness, or conversely determine their personality type. Just interesting
to see whether or not it happened to follow any pattern along the lines I
posited. If yes, I'd probably be more inclined to believe my little theory. If
not, I'd be more inclined to forget about it. And obviously not 100% either way.
Hmm. Let's ask another question concerning the test's accuracy. What if a group
of 100 psychiatrists independantly rated 100 people along the 4 dimentions of
M/B? And assume that the subjects rated themselves on M/B, and compared the
results to their psychiatrists' ratings? Assuming a good match (say, 90+%),
would you say it's any more useful of a test, now that it's not necessarily up
to personal self-bias?
Note that even if it showed a 100% match, I still wouldn't advocate it as an
empirical science, either-- I'd just give it more credit than I do now.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
