Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:50:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2849 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > 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,
That's actually untrue, based upon the statement by the test's owners.
> 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?
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 (or your proposed 1000-person sample) and reality are at best
speculative. And did you really mean "less useful" there?
> > > 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.
Sorry--your question didn't come across that way.
> 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?
I accept testimonial evidence that is falsifiable, reproducible, and consistent
with precedent and physical/chemical evidence--preferably with the support of
that evidence. If evidence exists contrary to the testimonial evidence, then
the testimony is either invalidated or is rendered highly questionable.
Likewise, if testimony is wildly in conflict with the understanding of the the
subject, then the testimony is not in itself, sufficient. For example, if a
psychiatrist says "Bob's brain is powered by a squirrel on a treadmill," then
we'd need to crack open Bob's head and take a look. Sorry, Bob.
Naturally I accept that psychology doesn't work in clearly defined yes/no
answers, and I accept that elements of psychology are consistent with the
scientific method, but when you move into the realm of individual, subjective,
and non-verifiable interpretation, you are leaving science behind.
Similarly, when you design a test that is non-falsifiable, you've also left
science behind.
> 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?
I must caution that your argument in this regard is sliding very close to those
"you believe your senses/therefore science is religion" arguments that went
through OT-debate a year or so ago. If you provide me with an endlessly
extendable laundry list of variously-empirical phenomena, of course I will mess
up on one of them sooner or later. However, the fact that I "believe" my
coworker when he makes the non-provable claim that his foot hurts *DOES NOT*
mean that I must perforce believe in God or accept the MBTI as a valid testing
instrument.
This is also, frankly, equivalent to the red herring "did you love your now-dead
mother/prove it" question that stealth-religionists enjoy so much.
However, consider this: the evidence suggests that emotional states (such as
happiness, depression, et al) are emergent phenomena resulting from
neurochemistry and the structure of the brain. By this measure, the "person's"
preception or reporting of depression is really secondary to the chemical
processes at play. Sure, a person may report "feeling better" after taking
Prozac, but that doesn't really matter; the underlying chemistry is what we're
actually discussing.
So the person's testimony is subordinate to the (admittedly, as yet
hypothetical) examination of the neurochemistry. Ultimately, the person's
testimony may be helpful in diagnosis but cannot be considered entirely
reliable. For example, someone may be addicted to Prozac and may thereafter
claim to be depressed when in fact he is not. By your logic, we seem to be
forced to conclude that he *is* depressed because he says so; since we cannot
"prove" that he isn't depressed, we must accept that he is.
> > Certainly depression exists in many forms,
>
> Really? Can you prove that without using testimonial evidence? Otherwise, should
> I not believe you?
If one defines depression as the perceptual manifestation resulting from, say,
an imbalance in the levels of seratonin (or whatever), then one can clearly
demonstrate the existence of depression by demonstrating this imbalance. Again,
the testimony of the patient is subordinate to actual evidence.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) Now that's a suprise to me-- Let's say I adamantly insist I'm a P, not a J, so when I test as a J, I manipulated it to be a P. But 58 psychologists rate me as a J, so if you compare my results against EITHER P or J you're right either way? (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| (...) 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, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
