Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:58:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2731 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
But it only allows for manipulation by the testee, which is why I changed the
example. In this case the testee might have initially TESTED as an INFP, and
changed their mind to ISFJ, only to be contradicted by the 100 psychologists.
Plus, although it doesn't explicitly forbid it, it implies (I would say allows
for) only a letter or two difference.
Besides, if 1000 people take it and 1000 people change half or more of their
answers over a random distribution, doesn't that show that at LEAST the test
portion (if not the tweaking portion) is less useful?
> > If personal testimony is insufficient as evidence, then do you similarly
> > dismiss the entirety of psychology/psychiatry as bunk?
>
> Not the entirety. Psychoanalysis is bunk. Jungian psychology is mostly
> bunk. Dream analysis is bunk. Pretty much any aspect of psychology that
> depends wholly on the psychologist's subjective, non-verifiable
> interpretation of testimony is bunk.
I'm not asking what you think IS bunk, but for what you think ISN'T bunk. What
DO you accept from psychology, and how does it differ? Is that which you DO
accept somehow not based on testimonial evidence, personal or otherwise?
> > 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?
>
> A drug that has been clinically shown to have a direct effect on the
> chemistry of the brain is fundamentally different from an abstract tool that
> purports to measure abstract principles.
Ah, but can you prove that the chemical effects seen on brain chemistry relate
to happiness or releif from stress? I mean, sure the people SAY they're happier,
but can you PROVE without testimonial evidence that they actually ARE? You can
prove perhaps that Prozac does *SOMETHING* to the brain, but how can you
possibly relate it to the desired effect, when the desired effect can only be
measured by personal testimony?
> Certainly depression exists in many forms,
Really? Can you prove that without using testimonial evidence? Otherwise, should
I not believe you?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) That's actually untrue, based upon the statement by the test's owners. (...) Before I answer, I have to ask what's the point of this hypothetical? We're back to the Infinite MPG car; it doesn't exist in reality, so comparisons between the car (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
