Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:48:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
<snip>
the
> years. The brain is a developmental thing. A psychotic killer will always be a
> psychotic killer? A manic depressive will always be a manic depressive?
>
> "Several studies, however, show that even when the test-retest interval is short
> (e.g., 5 weeks), as many as 50 percent of the people will be classified into a
> different type."
>
> Now, this was the only interesting bit to me in disproving the theory; however
> as it's worded, it worries me. "Different type" might mean a 1 letter
> difference, which they were close on before anyway. Again, with the 625 result
> test, you could judge more easily, but I'd be curious to see HOW different those
> types were from their initial testing. In fact, if 50% were the 100% the same,
> that's probably actually a good indicator (assuming I'm correct that only a
> letter, MAYBE two might have changed for most other people) that the test IS
> pretty repeatable.
<snip>
> DaveE
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 characteristic.
For example (and I don't recall the exact number, but this is how I remember it
working), there are, say, 20 questions that relate to 'introverted' vs
'extroverted'--now when I was in my college days, the test I took said I was an
ENFP, and, for that time, made pretty good sense. But I also remember that they
gave percentages--my 'E' wasn't very strong--it was somethign like an 11
questions answered for extroverted and 9 questions answered for introverted.
When I took the test a few years ago, I was an INFP--again, not strong in the I
but that's where I came down. Like almost everything, there are scales of
grey--I'm not diametrically opposite to who I was in college--total extrovert
then vs. total introvert now.
I like the MB for the simple fact that you can glean knowledge of yourself, and
of those around you, and to allow better interaction with one another.
It doesn't have to be 100 percent accurate--maybe I'm a 13/7 split instead of a
12/8 split--who cares? My truck gets approximately 600 km to the tank--doesn't
mean I'm going to bet the farm on getting to 600 km on every tank, just as I'm
not 'pegging' me as an introvert in all situations. Life is fluid.
But anythign that increases knowledge and wisdom is all right in my books.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) "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)
|
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
