Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:44:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2600 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > Actually, casual observation is in fact more useful than the test.
> > The test will only return results like "Bob's a great guy," "Bob's a
> > swell guy," "Bob's a nice guy," "Bob's a fine guy," etc.
> > Casual-but-honest observation, though hardly scientific, is probably
> > more usefully applicable to daily interaction than a test that only
> > returns generally positive answers.
>
> Well, I think it's results are more useful that a lame "Bob's a great guy."
> In some ways, I wonder if the greatest value isn't in the actual results,
> but in understanding what the different categories are supposed to be and
> that people really do think and work differently. As a result of what I have
> learned in workshops and such, I understand my own needs a bit better, and
> understand that other people don't work the same way.
I used to have a friend who gave herself a tarot reading at the end of each day
to help her assess her day's events. If it helped her focus on her life in a
productive way, then that's fine, and there's no harm in it. If the cards (ie,
the test and/or its proponents) made claims that cannot be supported by
evidence, then the harm would come when the proponent acted upon those claims.
Then it ceases being a harmless diversion.
> > Well, let me ask it this way. If a friend of yours took the MBTI and
> > his answers revealed him to be a total jerk who really doesn't like
> > you, would you stop hanging out with him? I'd hope not, because then
> > you'd be subordinating your own interpersonal assessment to an
> > arbitrary and (frankly) poorly-founded instrument. The point here is
> > that the test is seriously impaired by its shortcomings, and I see
> > these shortcomings as fatal, while you do not.
>
> But the test doesn't try and identify someone as a jerk so your question has
> no relevance. Now if you asked if I would stop associating with someone
> because the test said they were an introvert and I'm an extrovert, then the
> question would be valid. But my answer would be "No."
I offered this hypothetical because I don't have access to the full range of
possible MBTI results. However, unlike a hypothetical with no basis in reality
(the infinite MPG car, for example), Bob the Jerk is at least thematically
related to what the MBTI purports to test, i.e. personality.
Regardless, the test *is* seriously impaired by its shortcomings. I will
summarize a few of them here for clarity:
1. The test is non-falsifiable. This cannot be disputed, because the owners of
the test assert it outright. Versions of the test that *are* falsifiable are
not what I'm discussing.
2. The test is not clearly correlated to what it purports to test: At least,
the answers yielded by MBTI have not been independently verified to correlate
with the characteristics they seek to describe. Personal testimonial is not
sufficient when discussing a purportedly scientific instrument; if I say that a
barometer is correct but provide no other evidence, do you believe me? Why on
Earth would you?
3. The test results are not reproducible. Again, personal testimony is not
sufficient in this case. That includes personal testimony of psychiatrists or
people who think that the test describes them well.
> But if the test tends
> to correlate to their definition of introvert/extrovert, and I understand
> their definition, and I find it useful, then what's the harm?
I don't agree that the test reliably makes this correlation in any meaningful
way. As I mentioned, the test cannot yield incorrect answers, so a correct
answer has no meaning.
And part of the harm is that the test's owners are making money on an
ineffectual and, frankly, dubiously marketed instrument. Dave and I seem to
have moved away from "the MBTI as professional evaluator," so I didn't mention
that part, but it still stands. I understand that you aren't comfortable with
the test in that capacity either, so I'm not holding you to that standard.
Nonetheless, it is dishonest of the test's owners to profit from claims about
the MBTI that are false or baseless.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) If someone is rated as ISFJ by the test and as ENTP independantly by 100 psychologists, I'd call that pretty falsified as far as the test procedure itself. The categories themselves on the other hand, that's indeed another issue, and not (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Well, I think it's results are more useful that a lame "Bob's a great guy." In some ways, I wonder if the greatest value isn't in the actual results, but in understanding what the different categories are supposed to be and that people really (...) (20 years ago, 2-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
|
|
|
|
