User Tag List

First 7151617181927 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 511

  1. #161
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The validity comes from the fact that all the data is provided by the test-taker himself.
    MBTI is survey research. In survey research, when we talk of validity, it has nothing to do with the test-taker himself.

    Here's what types of validity are *ahem* valid for methodological knowledge regarding the validity of a survey tool:
    Measurement Validity Types

    I've never heard of any validity with regards to the test-taker. The one that comes closest, when you want to use the test-taker himself/herself, is actually called reliability, more specifically, test-retest reliability.
    Test-Retest Reliability


    The generalization part comes when it takes your personally stated preferences on these external stimuli and makes guesses about how you will respond to other, similar external stimuli in the future. It's behavioralism, and it IS a generalization because it takes a small sampling of your own behavioral preference and then tries to infer information about other situations.
    Um, not quite. For your edification, what generalizability refers to in survey methodology.
    Generalizability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  2. #162
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    I think sensors, (esp. SJs), feelers, and extroverts get hated on in this particular community.

    Oh well, let the haters hate.

    I am prejudiced against ignorant assholes of all types and kinds. I view them as harmful and dreadful wastes of human space.

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  3. #163
    unscannable Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    TIGR
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    I think sensors, (esp. SJs), feelers, and extroverts get hated on in this particular community.

    Oh well, let the haters hate.

    I am prejudiced against ignorant assholes of all types and kinds. I view them as harmful and dreadful wastes of human space.

    werd lady.
    Time is a delicate mistress.

  4. #164
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ...my ESFJ mother thinks such perceptual differences are lies that I made up to avoid responsibility. I see her perspective and she doesn't see mine; that's where most of the anti-SJ bigotry comes from, get it?
    Agreed; most SJ's I know don't "believe" there are real, tangible differences until they understand about functional strengths and communication styles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jen View Post
    I'd be interested in taking it from a trained psychologist to see if the results are the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    It's probably too late to take it from a trained psychologist, as you already understand the concepts in the system. I took it when naive (ha, I probably still am) with an accredited assessor (3 day workshop).
    And yes, it is better to walk into the testing not really having any comprehension of what it is trying to discern. Some of the online tests will not produce as consistent a result as actually taking the real thing.

    And that ties back somewhat to what I said before - doing this testing too young has drawbacks - although it can validate some of your own personal tendencies, there's a deeper trap in forming prejudices.

    We all need to learn to get along ... and growth happens our entire lives. Seeking out or excluding a specific 4 letter combo from your life can be very limiting.

    It's like deciding you don't like a certain food as a child ... then when you are older, sampling it again and loving it. You just don't have enough context at any given moment to see the big picture, or realize that we are changing all the time and need different experiences as we go along.

  5. #165
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    You misunderstood. I didn't question your confidence in the validity in MBTI but in the testing of it. What else could 100% N mean if not that you have 0% S? Why then do you place importance "being that I score 100% N" earlier? (Btw, I don't believe in percentages based off of tests. I'm just throwing that out there.).
    I placed importance on that just to show that I'm really far to the N side of preference. You can ignore the 100%; the number itself wasn't the important part.



    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    Did I say it had to be perfect in order to be useful? I merely pointed out that the system isn't or our understanding of it isn't. I wasn't placing value on its imperfection.
    I completely agree that neither the system nor our understanding of it is perfect. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    "You people"? lol The point wasn't that the system isn't scientifically proven, hence unusable, but that an NT wouldn't so easily believe in the system (tho' I was teasing you, you missed it =/). They may still play with it but not be so quick to believe it works. Follow?
    I don't "believe in the system" any further than my personal direct experience with its application has provided me with success in predicting the behaviors of others. Part of my understanding of the MBTI system is that it makes mistakes; I don't have any kind of blind faith in its accuracy, which I assume is what you intended to imply with your comment about "self-respecting NTs."

    Why would you make such a comment if not to imply that I possess overconfidence in MBTI's accuracy?




    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    You didn't understand this, then?:


    I'ma sayin' that the MBTI system isn't a generalization itself, but our interpretation of the collectivity of Types, which are formed through cognitive processes in order to create a pattern, are. The basic outline and interpretation of the Types are generalized. Not the system.
    Our interpretation of the system is the only way in which we can truly experience or conceptualize it. I'm not interested in toying around with such trivial semantics. If it makes you feel better, then fine, I was referring to the outline and interpretation of the types and not the system itself. Chalk up one incredibly minor and borderline totally irrelevant victory for you.



    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    Ever heard of confirmation bias?
    This can surely be a problem for people who have already studied the system and/or have some idea of what type they think they are/should be. Most people have never even heard of it, though, nor do they have any idea what the potential results might be--which provides some very useful unbiased neutrality when testing new people.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #166
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    I've never done the official test, when I first did online tests I came out as INTP, that didn't seem right, next couple of times it was INTJ and that wasn't right either so I looked into INFJ descriptions, that seemed closer! maybe this was me! I would notice the introverted and feeling parts of the description fit, and managed to think of intuition and judging in a way that it could apply to me. I then lurked around some mbti boards (this one included I think) and online descriptions and decided there was no way I could be an S, the way they were described they seemed so inferior, moronic even. So I never really looked into the S descriptions very deeply, I was sure I was an N. Eventually it hit me out of nowhere, even though I live a lot in my head, I am also always focused on the external world, I learnt about the processes and finally everything clicked into place and I could actually relate to ISFP.

    Morally of the story: Sometimes people suck at typing themselves, especially with the amount of crap and bias floating around on the net.

  7. #167
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    (It's 52 cards, btw.)
    Thanks. My type makes me always account for the two jokers. (even though I divided correctly to derive at 26)

    Yes, and the fact that a deck of cards is finite is why I can use precise numerical probabilities to describe it, but not with MBTI; however, the principle of increased predictability is still the same, and still based entirely on the concept of generalizations.
    As for your next paragraph, well, I think you've just restated my point, and at this point I suspect that you may misunderstand the definition of "generalization":

    –noun
    1. the act or process of generalizing.
    2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.

    A general statement, idea, or principle. A generalization doesn't have to describe ALL members of a given group or class in order to have validity. As long as it describes a majority of them a majority of the time, it's useful.

    For another example, here's a generalization: Black people are better at basketball than white people.

    Of course, there are certainly great white basketball players. There are probably even more black people who suck at basketball, but neither of these facts reduces the value of said generalization. Obviously examples abound of white people who play basketball better than black people, and yet the generalization itself still rings true. It's a question of averages, not of applying exact or rigid labels to every individual member of a particular group. This is the very definition of a generalization.
    Please see my post #161

  8. #168
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    MBTI is survey research. In survey research, when we talk of validity, it has nothing to do with the test-taker himself.

    Here's what types of validity are *ahem* valid for methodological knowledge regarding the validity of a survey tool:
    Measurement Validity Types

    I've never heard of any validity with regards to the test-taker. The one that comes closest, when you want to use the test-taker himself/herself, is actually called reliability, more specifically, test-retest reliability.
    Test-Retest Reliability


    Um, not quite. For your edification, what generalizability refers to in survey methodology.
    Generalizability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Great, link me to a long wiki article and hope I don't bother reading it, then claim I'm ignorant/defeated when I don't respond.

    By now, I'm quite sure that you understood my point, despite any possible errors in technical terminology. Apologies for my lack of background in statistics, but all of my conceptual points have been solid. If what I've been explaining is not actually called a "generalization" in stat lingo, then congrats, you got me on that minor point.

    But, anyone who understands that word in common usage will understand exactly why I used it and exactly what I meant. It's cute that you're flaunting your statistics knowledge (or, at least, your ability to link to wiki articles containing statistics knowledge), but you're arguing such a tiny point of semantics that I don't even care anymore.

    It's still obvious that a system which declares only four things about a person and attempts to construct a psychological profile based on answering 70 questions is generalizing (you can replace that word with whatever equivalent word doesn't throw a bee in your bonnet about precise, esoteric terminology.)

    It's also obvious that any potential validity in such a system must stem from the fact that the data used to generalize about a given person's internal motivations is provided by the person himself--because no one knows you better than you know you. Way to try and derail the conversation by whining about semantics, but you haven't done anything to disprove the root concepts behind what I'm saying.

    And you wonder why anti-S bias abounds. Concepts, not memorized terms, my friend.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #169
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    I've never done the official test, when I first did online tests I came out as INTP, that didn't seem right, next couple of times it was INTJ and that wasn't right either so I looked into INFJ descriptions, that seemed closer! maybe this was me! I would notice the introverted and feeling parts of the description fit, and managed to think of intuition and judging in a way that it could apply to me. I then lurked around some mbti boards (this one included I think) and online descriptions and decided there was no way I could be an S, the way they were described they seemed so inferior, moronic even. So I never really looked into the S descriptions very deeply, I was sure I was an N. Eventually it hit me out of nowhere, even though I live a lot in my head, I am also always focused on the external world, I learnt about the processes and finally everything clicked into place and I could actually relate to ISFP.

    Morally of the story: Sometimes people suck at typing themselves, especially with the amount of crap and bias floating around on the net.
    very good point!
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  10. #170
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I don't have any kind of blind faith in its accuracy, which I assume is what you intended to imply with your comment about "self-respecting NTs."

    Why would you make such a comment if not to imply that I possess overconfidence in MBTI's accuracy?
    Not only did you miss it the first time, you missed it when I actually said I was "teasing you". Again, again, that was all previously aimed at your overconfidence in the validity of.... the TESTing of it. Ze test. This is my second time explaining it. C'mon. You've had enough to grasp, understand me now. I roar.

    Our interpretation of the system is the only way in which we can truly experience or conceptualize it. I'm not interested in toying around with such trivial semantics. If it makes you feel better, then fine, I was referring to the outline and interpretation of the types and not the system itself. Chalk up one incredibly minor and borderline totally irrelevant victory for you.
    If it makes me feel better...? lol No, it's a minor and borderline totally irrelevant lose for you. I could care less, honestly. Understand it or don't, accept it or don't. I'm not forcing you to.

    This can surely be a problem for people who have already studied the system and/or have some idea of what type they think they are/should be. Most people have never even heard of it, though, nor do they have any idea what the potential results might be--which provides some very useful unbiased neutrality when testing new people.
    Depending on which tests, the questions themselves are normally flawed and inherently biased towards a favourable implication to N, which lead people to make errors due to lack of understanding and association. See Quinlan above. I used to come up INTJ a few times before I had any further understanding of MBTI or knew what the terms meant.

    Anyway, enough playing here. We've hijacked this thread long enough. My apologies Qre:us.

Similar Threads

  1. TypeC biased against sensors?
    By Oaky in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-28-2010, 12:52 AM
  2. [NT] The NT Prejudice Against Feeling
    By Synarch in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 03:42 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Question for sensors?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 03:30 AM
  4. [ISTJ] Famous dead Sensors
    By labyrinthine in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 01:10 PM

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