Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:06:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3241 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
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 falsifiable save by personal testimony.
> 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?
I'd say personal testimonial exists to that conclusion. But you seem not to want
to accept that as even slight evidence. If personal testimony is insufficient as
evidence, then do you similarly dismiss the entirety of psychology/psychiatry as
bunk? Is there no such thing as "despression"? Is Prozac useless because it
similarly makes money off of people doing something that it can't prove that it
does?
> 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.
Ditto above.
(Wow, a reply that didn't take me a kazillion hours! Darn these habitually long
threads!)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) That would be true ONLY if the test did not allow for tweaking. Because it allows for post hoc manipulation, your objection does not apply to this shortcoming. (...) In the absence of other evidence, personal testimony is not sufficient to (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
