Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Nov 2004 23:48:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2512 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Sure, they *may* do that, just as tea leaves *may* tell you who you're going
> to marry.
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 partners accurately, even when the marriages take place far in the
future. For kicks, let's say in some cases the name of the partner is correctly
given, even unbeknownst to the queried spouse, and before the future partner is
born. (IE "Hey, old kook! Here's my newborn daughter, Julia. Who's she going to
marry?" <consults leaves> "Robert Bob Mumbleschnauser, who hasn't even been born
yet")
Regardless that the method isn't engineered to be scientific, is there merit in
its predictions? Is there perhaps some scientific componant that's not
understood underlying the leaves? Or perhaps insofar as the people
subconsciously responding to signals and PICKING who they were meant for? But
despite those possibilities, is there actual MERIT it the prediction, given the
odds?
> My argument is that the test is inadequate as the tool it is marketed and
> sold to be; namely, it is marketed and sold as a tool of professional and/or
> career planning, and it is not suited to that role.
Well, there's no argument from me on that one-- nor has there been. My opinion
is that its suited to tracking general personality trends, and I'm curious as to
whether there's any correlation to religious beliefs or not.
Your argument there is (apparently) that it's NOT good for tracking trends, and
NOT good for correllating perhaps how people think to what people believe
religiously.
> Well, I hadn't quite thought of it like that, but that's a point worth
> mentioning. I don't have a problem with a test that *could* return 100%
> positive results. I have a problem with a test that is designed so that it
> is not possible to give a negative result.
Again, I keep bringing this up, it IS possible (I think) to get a negative
result. If it scored me as an ENFJ instead of an ISTP, that (I would hold) would
be a negative result for me. It wouldn't be 100% negative, since I do think I
have hints of E,N,F, and J, and am even close to the border on S/N and maybe
even E/I more recently, but still, it would be LESS right than a result of ISTP.
Is it *verifiably* *empirically* negative or positive? No. But I'll get to that
below.
> > Not sure if I'd intuitively expect [a bell curve] or not... People of ONE
> > particular stat may also follow a 2nd stat (or, I would intuitively expect
> > so), and people in the same family and culture may show tendancies to some
> > particular types (or I would intuitively expect), but I'm not sure I'd
> > expect a normalized distribution over one of the 16 types in the general
> > population. Maybe over some of the dimensions, perhaps.
>
> I think that's how it was meant--there should be a bell-curve distribution of
> each trait, rather than of each four-character personality descriptor.
If that's how he's meaning it, he'll have a hard time doing it without
incremental levels per dimension. I mean, if the bell curve is smack dab in the
middle for one trait, you'll get a 50/50 distribution in your two categories,
and won't be able to tell that you got a perfect bell or not. Same if another
trait's biased towards one side. A simple yes/no simply isn't going to prove or
disprove the fact that you've got a bell curve. At least trying to measure it on
the 16 areas could sorta give you something. Ish. Even then I dunno.
> > "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."
>
> Then that's a major failing of the test, isn't it? Remember, I'm not
> objecting to your casual use of the test; I'm objecting to its use as an
> indicator of professional potential.
You keep saying that, but then attacking my use of it as the closest I can get
to empirical data corellating my theory on personality types vs. religious
preference. I've repeatedly said I've agreed with you as to its use as a
potential prediction tool and as a hiring device. Instead, I'm interested in its
use as containing at least something resembling empirical evidence (arguably
some of the closest you can get in the world of psychology), albeit not 100%
accurate evidence, but more like "pretty accurate" evidence.
> > 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.
>
> Consistently producing the same result is only a demonstration of
> consistency, rather than of accuracy.
That's true, but if it's not consistent, it's not likely to be very accurate :)
Hence, when I first read that, I thought "huh! maybe I'm all turned around on
the subject", until I re-read it in the author's contexts of "types" which might
have indicated a single-letter difference, which may not be as different as the
author would have you believe.
> Additionally, if you're equating this
> form of "repeatability" with the principle of "reproducibility," then I'd
> caution that merely performing the same test on the same person and getting
> the same result is not really reproducing the result. You need independent
> confirmation before you can claim that the M/B's results have been
> meaningfully reproduced.
For me, like I said, it's been done. Just not to any overwhelming extent. Both
my mother and I thought I was introverted, long before I took the test. Took the
test not knowing what it was measuring. Said I was introverted. Independant
confirmation? Sounds like it (unless you mean something else). EMPIRICAL
independant confirmation? Nope.
> > No? I knew about introversion/extroversion before the test and rated myself
> > an introvert.
>
> Not the terms Extravert and Intravert. I'm talking about the arbitrary
> combinations of "ISTJ," "ESFP," etc., which were certainly created by the
> designers.
Huh? How come the combinations are somehow different than the sum of their
constituent parts? Are you implying that the Extrovert/Introvert subcomponent of
M/B is accurate, but not when put into context with other classifications?
Or do you instead mean that in order to independantly verify the M/B results
that someone has to give all 4 components?
> > Test matched my assessment.
>
> Did it? Did it match you specifically, in a way that others could not claim
> to "match" with equal certainty?
Well, no. As implied, others HAVE made that assesment of me that matched with
varying degrees of certainty. Nothing 100%, but yeah, of coruse not.
> You're succumbing to the Forer effect, as
> previously described. And if it didn't match your assessment, you have
> explicit instructions from the designers to massage the results until they
> *do* match your assessment.
Well, yeah, sorta. In the end, it acknowledges its own shortcomings as a test,
which we've both acknowledged. And as such, you're right, it only invalidates
the test portion moreso. But it does nothing to the credibility of the
dimensions themselves.
> > Let's take another example. Stubbornness again. Is this a personality trait
> > that exists? Are there such things as stubborn people? Suppose I invented a
> > test that yielded 80% "accurate" results as compared to a team of 100
> > psychologists, friends, family, and co-workers who rated each subject
> > independantly? Are the psychologists, friends, family, and co-workers unable
> > to make the distinction of stubbornness? Is the test?
>
> Sure it is. But is it a good one? I don't think so. You need to spell out
> explicitly the criteria by which your friends, family, coworkers, and
> psychiatrists evaluate the subject as "stubborn." This may seem like an
> unreasonable burden to place upon the reviewers, but if their assessments are
> being offered as confirmation of the test, then specificity is required.
Wow, breakthrough! What criteria would you accept? "Remember the time that XXXXX
and XXXXX?" "Led subject to believe one thing, then presented evidence to the
contrary, tested length of time and willingness for subject to change his mind",
etc. What level of specificity would you allow as "empirical"? How can you, as
an evaluator, give any sort of non-subjective input as to someone else's
stubbornness? Isn't "stubbornness" an evaluative word humans created in an
attempt to describe a personality trait? (actually, I think it simply got
applied to personality after its invention, but regardless) At what precise
point does someone go from being "leniant" to "stubborn"? Where's the midpoint?
Where are the endpoints?
What would have to be done to convince you that I'm stubborn when it comes to,
say, my beliefs in relative morality? Is any of that empirical? Or is it "just
good enough for you to believe it, if only slightly more than 50%"?
> > Yep. Like I've said, the test, especially because it's yes/no instead of
> > gradular, will probably make mistakes, and is hence unreliable in the
> > individual case. But in the general case, I'd still guess it's mostly
> > accurate.
>
> Your conclusion really baffles me. I'm saying that the test cannot possibly
> yield an inaccurate result, and you're saying "therefore it's mostly
> accurate." Maybe it is, but the accuracy has no value.
I disagree that the test cannot possibly give an inaccurate result. As I said,
if it called me an ENFJ, that's inaccurate. My above point is that the test
itself is prone to error, because lots of people are close to the 'midpoint'
between two extremes. Hence, depending on mood, connotations of words given on
the test, etc., they may test differently than they "should", and (perhaps
worse) in the same group as people who are overwhelmingly unbalanced in the
opposite direction of their slightly tilt.
I *DO* however agree that many people, because the end results are worded
positively, may be erroneously categorized and not realize it.
> > If you had a lonely, pessimistic friend (alright, I admit those are
> > unempirical attributes) who got evaluated independantly by 4 psychiatrists,
> > who all diagnosed him with depression, would you believe it to be true?
>
> It depends on the method they use, of course. If they lick his elbow and say
> "he's depressed," then I probably won't be too impressed with their
> diagnosis. If they consult a star chart and say "he's depressed," then I
> likewise won't have much confidence. But if they undertake a serious system
> of inquiry based upon proven and reproducible criteria, then I'll be much
> more likely to put stock in their assessment.
Ahh. Define "proven and reproducable criteria" as they relate to depression. Not
even the specifics, but the type of data you'd be willing to accept. The subject
answering various questions? Is the psychiatrist's assessment of those answers
not subjective? Will the subject produce the exact same answers verbatim if
asked again by the next evaluator?
You imply that you WOULD believe the assessment, but where's the line between
objective and subjective here? How many evaluations do you need to see before
you believe it?
> The M/B test, in contrast, uses neither proven nor reproducible criteria.
Proven, I'll agree. It's not "proven". Reproducible? I'm not sure I'd agree. I
am admittedly curious to try and locate that report online that gave a 50%
repeatability bit, since my suspicion is that most of the remaining 50% were off
by a letter or two.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
