Yes, but, we're talking about chocolate here, not cognitive processes. The mind is a complex thing. Which is my point in directing you to stay strictly within the limitations of definitions used in survey research, esp. those that try to quantify socio and/or psychological phenomena. Generalizability in such cases is a very tricky matter because you're trying to predict what a person will do/think by what he's done/thought before, but, unlike chocolate, it's on matters that are not even concrete - such as intuition versus sensing. To be able to parse out whether one is using intuition versus sensing, and generalizing to other situations, raises a heck of a lot more issues than predicting if you are vanilla or chocolate kinda guy.I don't agree that you can't generalize information about a person back onto himself. If I tell you that I like chocolate cake, chocolate cookies, and chocolate brownies, can you reasonably infer that I probably like chocolate eclair?
You could try an astrology forum, no one is stopping you.You are right that some confirmation bias can cause problems...hence the imperfection of the system. But if MBTI didn't have some kind of repeatable use in terms of observations about the behavior of others, why would any of us be here on this forum discussing it? Why would we be interested in it at all? Why aren't we all also posting on a bunch of astrology forums?
I promise to never laugh at you. I'm a lady, I only giggle.(And/or produce an amusing emotional reaction for you to laugh at.)
Um...thanks.Well, here you go, if it's what you wanted:
Apparently I was wrong about the technical definition of a generalization. My apologies.