Subject:
|
Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:02:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2753 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
>
> **snip all of that, yours and mine**
Heh, phew!
> However, I've been thinking about the double blind we discussed previously,
> and here's what I suggest:
Awesome! That's what I was looking for. That although you may not accept the
CURRENT data you've seen as accurate, that you WOULD be willing to accept data,
even though it runs at least SOME risk of being subjective, that would validate
or invalidate (albeit subjectively) your view of MBTI. The fact that you think
the categories, even if you believed them, aren't very specific is fine by me.
> 16 MBTI results is clearly far too few to provide a usefully specific
> description of any test subject. Proponents of the MBTI still laud it as
> "specific enough," but that just doesn't cut it for me. Again, I refer you to
> my World Series summation, or my previous example of the non-lose-able
> pinball machine.
And as far as "specific enough" goes, you're right (IMHO) insofar as MBTI isn't
specific enough to provide useful data about hiring someone, but I would say
it's better than nothing. Your World Series summation, after all, is useless for
people who know the rules of the World Series, but IS admittedly slightly
informational for people who don't have the foggiest idea what it is.
> The psychologists' assessments may be well-informed, but they're subjective
> even if they work as a team. With this in mind, the best you can ever say is
> "according to these psychologists..." and that still doesn't count as
> anything more than professional testimony.
Yep! And in that regard, the same can be said for 100% of science once you get
down to the nitty gritty as you suggested. Does gravity exist? The best we can
say is that "In these kajillion situations, it appeared to exist". Our
willingness to accept gravity moreso than psychologists' opinions is effectively
arbitrary. We do it because experience has taught us what sorts of evidence to
believe with more voracity than others. But in the end, it's only a matter of
how many instances it takes of beholding empirical or subjective evidence to
convince our own subjective opinions into believing that a particular conclusion
is probably true or probably false.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Personality test vs. Religion
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: **snip all of that, yours and mine** Let's start afresh, because we've veered into abstract neuro-epistemology that I don't think either of is qualified to address. However, I've been thinking about the (...) (20 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
