User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 105

  1. #31
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    no psychometrician believes in MBTI.
    Go ahead and support your point, Victor, because it's obviously not true.

    Asserting it doesn't help anyone.

  2. #32
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evan View Post
    Lol.

    I bet there's a least one, but they're probably pretty insane.

    Remember, even Newton lost his marbles.
    I regularly ask members of the Astronomy Department about astrology.

    Those with a sense of humour laugh at me.

    And those who are more serious explain to me why astrology is a superstition.

  3. #33
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I regularly ask members of the Astronomy Department about astrology.

    Those with a sense of humour laugh at me.

    And those who are more serious explain to me why astrology is a superstition.
    I agree with you there, but you're making that analogous to a psychometrician's relationship with MBTI, which is completely non-parallel.

  4. #34
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evan View Post
    Go ahead and support your point, Victor, because it's obviously not true.

    Asserting it doesn't help anyone.
    By all means put it to the test.

    Ring the Psychology Department of your local University and ask to speak to a fully qualified psychometrician.

    And put the question to them.

    I know what the answer will be because I have done exactly this.

    Why don't you?

    Or do you wish to maintain you superstitious belief in MBTI in spite of the evidence?

  5. #35
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And this gives us an insight into MBTI.

    And just a no astronomer believes in astrology, no psychometrician believes in MBTI.
    Now victor... you need to be more specific that than. Broad generalization doesn't get you anywhere with these folks. Believe me I tried... they'll just say astronomers haven't studied astrology so how can they tell?

    As to the psychometricians, they seek to describe perception using quantitative measurements, since MBTI is never quantitative it doesn't suit their purpose. Also in some ways MBTI is not falsifiable. Hence it doesn't belong in science. Does typology really exist? I'm not sure, but the model itself is useful in making predictions and so I use it. In other words, the "what" matters, but not the "why".

  6. #36
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    By all means put it to the test.

    Ring the Psychology Department of your local University and ask to speak to a fully qualified psychometrician.

    And put the question to them.

    I know what the answer will be because I have done exactly this.

    Why don't you?

    Or do you wish to maintain you superstitious belief in MBTI in spite of the evidence?
    Actually, I have talked to professors in the Psychology department at UC Berkeley about MBTI. As long as it's not mis- or over applied, it's a good framework tool. That is all.

    It's not a predictive tool. You seem to assume that everyone that uses MBTI makes incorrect inductive leaps all the time. In fact, it's much like calling someone "realistic" or "good at impersonal reasoning", etc.

    Do you not notice traits in people and have a desire to state them?

  7. #37
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evan View Post
    Actually, I have talked to professors in the Psychology department at UC Berkeley about MBTI. As long as it's not mis- or over applied, it's a good framework tool. That is all.

    It's not a predictive tool. You seem to assume that everyone that uses MBTI makes incorrect inductive leaps all the time. In fact, it's much like calling someone "realistic" or "good at impersonal reasoning", etc.

    Do you not notice traits in people and have a desire to state them?
    The premise behind applied MBTI is predictive. People of specific type are likely to behave in a certain manner and thus you should be aware of. Agree with you that you're not saying person A will do this because they're so and so type.

  8. #38
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Now victor... you need to be more specific that than. Broad generalization doesn't get you anywhere with these folks. Believe me I tried... they'll just say astronomers haven't studied astrology so how can they tell?

    As to the psychometricians, they seek to describe perception using quantitative measurements, since MBTI is never quantitative it doesn't suit their purpose. Also in some ways MBTI is not falsifiable. Hence it doesn't belong in science. Does typology really exist? I'm not sure, but the model itself is useful in making predictions and so I use it. In other words, the "what" matters, but not the "why".
    I have had this argument many times and after a while it becomes circular.

    The fact is you can study psychometrics and find out why MBTI is an invalid and unreliable personality test or you can ask a qualified psychometrician.

    MBTI is followed for exactly the same reason astrology is followed. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence.

    MBTI is world wide cult for narcissists just like astrology.

    MBTI is pseudo science. It only pretends to be science with an interest in evidence.

    MBTI is part of the New Age Movement - it has no more validity than homeopathy.

    MBTI is simply a belief system.

    And of course I support freedom of belief. But I draw the line when it pretends to be science.

    Look, the candidate for Vice-President of the United States of America openly believed in the pseudo science of Creationism.

    So why not MBTI?

  9. #39
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I have had this argument many times and after a while it becomes circular.

    The fact is you can study psychometrics and find out why MBTI is an invalid and unreliable personality test or you can ask a qualified psychometrician.

    MBTI is followed for exactly the same reason astrology is followed. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence.

    MBTI is world wide cult for narcissists just like astrology.

    MBTI is pseudo science. It only pretends to be science with an interest in evidence.

    MBTI is part of the New Age Movement - it has no more validity than homeopathy.

    MBTI is simply a belief system.

    And of course I support freedom of belief. But I draw the line when it pretends to be science.

    Look, the candidate for Vice-President of the United States of America openly believed in the pseudo science of Creationism.

    So why not MBTI?
    I know why they consider it as pseudoscience. It's because it's unfalsifiable. I do study psychology. Is it a belief system? Only if you call a categorical system as a belief system. It's not the same as what astrology is claiming though. Arbitrary dividing something into groups is one thing, assuming there's a correlation between one pattern with another is another.

    Edit:
    The next thing that'll probably come up is am I a hypocrite? Perhaps, perhaps not. There are different degrees of pseudoscience. MBTI and say palmistry are less of an offender than astrology. I find MBTI and palmistry as being "interesting". Are they valid? Not in the quantifiable sense. Are they any different than astrology? In my mind they are. There's possible explanations for why these patterns exists... that cannot be said for astrology.

  10. #40
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I have had this argument many times and after a while it becomes circular.

    The fact is you can study psychometrics and find out why MBTI is an invalid and unreliable personality test or you can ask a qualified psychometrician.

    MBTI is followed for exactly the same reason astrology is followed. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence.

    MBTI is world wide cult for narcissists just like astrology.

    MBTI is pseudo science. It only pretends to be science with an interest in evidence.

    MBTI is part of the New Age Movement - it has no more validity than homeopathy.

    MBTI is simply a belief system.

    And of course I support freedom of belief. But I draw the line when it pretends to be science.

    Look, the candidate for Vice-President of the United States of America openly believed in the pseudo science of Creationism.

    So why not MBTI?
    Not everyone who uses the MBTI uses it in a pseudo-scientific way. It's a STATISTICAL tool. It's easily overapplied, but it's not by definition overapplied. Astrology IS by definition overapplied.

    The point is to figure out how to use it in a statistically valid way, and use it no more often than that.

    Even if you have an argument against that, I'd like to hear an argument against this:
    It's easier to say 'N' than "a person who tends to use inductive reasoning/imagination/metaphor more often than most". Right?
    It's easier to say 'NJ' than "a person who tends to use metaphors in a linear thought process"
    It's easier to say 'NP' than "a person who tends to use metaphors about many different topics, regardless of personal relevance".

    Worst case, this language acts as extremely efficient verbal shortcuts.

Similar Threads

  1. [Multiple Systems] INFJs of Different Zodiac Signs | Astrology and the MBTI
    By Jetta in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2017, 12:52 PM
  2. The President, Astrology, and MBTI
    By Mole in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 11:31 PM
  3. Astrology and the Astrolabe
    By Mole in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-24-2015, 02:07 AM
  4. The Connection between Astrology and "Messiahs"
    By SecondBest in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 04:13 AM
  5. Typing the US and England
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-29-2008, 07:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO