Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:49:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2062 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> 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.
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 of the test are claiming that it's a valid tool of evaluation, the burden
of proof is upon them to demonstrate conclusively that the test is valid.
This is a fallacy common to a lot of New Age-ish thinking. The skeptic *does
not* have to disprove the wacky claim; the supporter must prove it.
> 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.
Forgive me, but so far I can't think of anything that *would* convince you to
abandon this baseless test. Because the test is inherently non-falsifiable, it
is worthless as an empirical instrument.
But let's set this test aside for a moment. I would definitely be interested to
see whether a predisposition to religious belief is linked to other traits or
behaviors, or perhaps a function of genetics. Maybe then we could find a cure,
at long last? (Ha ha)
> 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?
I hate to interrupt, but this condition assumes that the 4 M/B dimensions are
valid. That's essentially assuming that the central thesis of the test is
valid, which I'm not prepared to do. Before we adopt your condition, we must
demonstrate that the 4 M/B dimensions indeed are valid.
However, they have no more demonstrable validity than the ancient theory of four
humours.
> 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?
I think that this would be an interesting starting point, if we could
demonstrate the validity of the 4 M/B dimensions. However, you're describing a
single-blind experiment, since in your description the psychiatrists know what
they're testing. To increase the validity of the experiment you'd need to
ensure that the psychiatrists' results were not themselves tainted.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
