Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:48:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2112 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
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. You can ask anyone who knows me.
They'll probably all agree. I've had people call me indecisive unprompted.
Taking the M/B test? Showed the same result. I'm also introveted. As a young
High-School student my mom tried to explain that to me as a partial reason for
me being an unpopular nerd. I didn't want to believe it at the time, but
eventually I accepted it. In college, when I took the M/B test for the first
time? Nailed me as introverted. Thinker/Feeler? Again, nailed me.
Sensing/iNtuition? Eh, I don't think I'm strong strong either way on that axis,
although IIRC M/B said I was on the "Sensing" side.
Anyway, it seemed to get me pretty right. Evidence? I'd say so. If (this being
the fact that the evidence is falsifiable) it had called me extroverted,
feeling, or judgemental, I'd have disagreed with it pretty quick.
When I took the test for the 1st time, it was for a class. Everyone took it, and
the teacher then said we could divide into groups of our choosing (all of type X
together or all mixed types together, our choice-- our class foolishly voted
[against my vote I might add] to put like types together). I got together with
my group, and I could tell this was gonna suck. Everyone in my group was quiet,
"do-it-last-minute"-type-people, just like me. Would've helped us greatly to
have a decisive extrovert in our group to get us all talking and to get us on a
plan quickly. Similarly, I could tell other groups of people also seemed close
personality-wise. Plus, although I didn't know what peoples' personality types
were, there were some people who I expected were very similar. After class
(before being assigned to a group, which was done the following day), I tried to
predict who'd be in my group, who I *wanted* in my group, and who else I knew
that might be grouped together. I was right in my predictions.
What does that show empirically? Nothing. I can't prove that I predicted certain
people in certain groups, and I can't prove to anyone that I'm indecisive or
introverted. But nevertheless, it's evidence I trust, at least to a limited
extent. Hence, I have *some* degree of faith in the test.
You are perfectly free to reject my "evidence" as being useless. After all, like
I said, I can't prove it to you empirically. But you'll be hard pressed to make
me *disbelieve* my "evidence" without showing me some empirical evidence to the
contrary :)
> 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.
To make me disbelieve it, you'd have to find some people that I knew pretty
well, whom I could classify into multiple M/B types. Then, after I had made
predictions, you'd have to have them take the test and show that I was only 60%
or less correct (or some percentage reasonably close to 50% basically).
Essentially the same proposition I came up with later (the psychiatrists
evaluating people, and being wrong or arbitrarily right)
> 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)
Heh, it would be very interesting indeed. Again, one wonders how closely
personality types (regardless of their relation to M/B) are genetic or
experienced-- Now that we've got the human genome mapped, could we (someday when
computers are cool enough) create a virtual world for people and have them
create their own ideas of god(s)/the supernatural? Could we "adjust" their
personalities "genetically" and have a virtual society that didn't believe in
god(s)?
> 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.
I'm not sure I follow-- if the 4 dimensions aren't accurate, wouldn't we find
people who match both traits (or neither), hence invalidating that dimension
since it will most likely be arbitrarily picked by the person and/or
psychiatrists? Basically, if someone has a tendancy to BOTH
"jump-to-conclusions" AND "never make any conclusions", won't they be
arbitrarily picked as one or the other more-or-less arbitrarily by the
psychiatrists and by themselves on the test, hence creating a higher degree of
error, and invalidating that dimension, or at the very least the test's ability
to *measure* that dimension?
Effectively, if the test measures 2/4 dimensions at 95% accuracy, 1 at 75%
accuracy, and 1 at 56% accuracy, wouldn't the assumption be that the 2 at 95%
are valid dimensions; the 56% one is probably invalid, and the 75% is "maybe
right"?
As for the dimensions being right, what would you accept as "proof"? Let's say
some biologists claim to have found the "decisive" gene in human genetics. They
remove it from 1,000 people, and add it to 1,000 people. How would you test
whether someone in your 2,000 people was "decisive" or not to see if it worked?
I mean, sure, everyone around Ed says "yeah, Ed is pretty decisive now that he
got that gene dealy". But how can you trust what they say about Ed, since it's
not empirical? Is there any empirical way that would satisfy you? Or will you
forever be adamant that personality types defined in any way whatsoever are 100%
hogwash because they're not empirically verifiable?
> > 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.
Single blind-- how? I mean, I suppose you could ask the psychiatrists for 87
different dimensions, and only 4 are being compared, and the psychiatrists don't
know which ones are counted-- but if we were actually going to do that sort of
thing, then sure, I think I'd encourage it. In fact, I'd probably also include
other personality traits to test as well, that AREN'T tested by M/B, just for
curiosity's sake. But if you're asking for them to test the M/B characteristics
whithout knowing they're testing them, well... I'm not sure that's possible.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
