User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 85

  1. #71
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In that respect, it is a mistake to claim that all types have equal strength.
    But that is not what I'm arguing. What I have stated is that no type is a better way to be than any other type. Each is unique, each has its strengths, each has its own style of leadership, creativity, learning, etc. Human nature, though, seems to want to find its position in the pecking order, making things like multiple intelligences more acceptable...or distorting the constructive use of differences to imply that one way of being is better than another as opposed to learning from each other...
    edcoaching

  2. #72
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    Victor, can you explain to me step by step how MBTI could be administered using "double blind" methods?
    MBTI could not be administered using double blind methods.

    A double blind experiment is designed to test the validity and reliability of a personality test.

    So a double blind experiment has nothing whatsoever to with administering a personality test. But has everything to do with its validity and reliability.

  3. #73
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    But that is not what I'm arguing. What I have stated is that no type is a better way to be than any other type. Each is unique, each has its strengths, each has its own style of leadership, creativity, learning, etc. Human nature, though, seems to want to find its position in the pecking order, making things like multiple intelligences more acceptable...or distorting the constructive use of differences to imply that one way of being is better than another as opposed to learning from each other...
    The problem is that some want to teach Creationism and some want to teach Natural Selection.

    Some want to teach alchemy and some want to teach chemistry.

    Some want to teach astrology and some want to teach astronomy.

    Some want to teach blind belief and some want to teach evidence and reason.

    The two are just not compatible. So both can't be right. However one can be right and one can be wrong.

    Which one do you choose?

  4. #74
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    MBTI could not be administered using double blind methods.

    A double blind experiment is designed to test the validity and reliability of a personality test.

    So a double blind experiment has nothing whatsoever to with administering a personality test.
    I don't know why you keep beating the double-blind drum. MBTI isn't a test or an experiment. It's a sorting tool. You tell it some things about you, and it wraps them up into a package and gives them right back to you.

    The problem isn't the sorting tool, it's how people attribute too much significance to it. The tool really only works for the input you give it. It's when people (administrators or takers) generalize and try and draw conclusions about your OTHER tendencies that you run into a problem. But that's a problem that's unrelated to it's validation, because again, there's nothing to validate. It's a problem of misunderstanding.

    In the end, MBTI isn't an invalid tool, just a blunt one.

  5. #75
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xNTP View Post
    I don't know why you keep beating the double-blind drum. MBTI isn't a test or an experiment. It's a sorting tool. You tell it some things about you, and it wraps them up into a package and gives them right back to you.

    The problem isn't the sorting tool, it's how people attribute too much significance to it. The tool really only works for the input you give it. It's when people (administrators or takers) generalize and try and draw conclusions about your OTHER tendencies that you run into a problem. But that's a problem that's unrelated to it's validation, because again, there's nothing to validate. It's a problem of misunderstanding.

    In the end, MBTI isn't an invalid tool, just a blunt one.
    MBTI is claimed to be a personality test but it's not. It is another American scam.

    How do we know this?

    Two Americans with absolutely no qualifications in Psychometrics plagiarized MBTI from Jung's book, "Personality Types".

    And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever.

    Then they sold it as a personality test for the masses that would help us understand ourselves and get on with one another. But in fact MBTI is used for social control by the only remaining super power.

    So by telling the truth about MBTI we are speaking truth to power.

    I understand that most here identify with this power. But unfortunately for them, this is an international site with an international perspective. So it is too much to expect that all of us will willingly take part in an American scam.

    Particularly as this scam is being exported to foreign school children in their bedrooms.

  6. #76
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    MBTI is claimed to be a personality test but it's not.
    ...
    And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever.
    Claimed to be a test by whom? The I stands for inventory, which means that it's collecting data about you and trying to build something meaningful out of that data, not testing. But you know...who cares? Why get tripped up in this language? Why not just attack the faulty logic when you see it, rather than attack the test itself? Your criticism of the inventory only works if the person believes that it holds this special meaning. In other words, your criticism would be better lodged against the person misinterpreting the test than the test itself.

    I'm fully in support of a campaign like that to disabuse people of their misconceptions about MBTI, specifically, the way they try to squeeze their (and others') identity into 4 sacred letters. The control thing, I don't really get so much. I guess I see what you might be saying, but I don't think the intent of corporate America is to control the masses through a semi-popular personality-assessment tool.

  7. #77
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    But that is not what I'm arguing. What I have stated is that no type is a better way to be than any other type. Each is unique, each has its strengths, each has its own style of leadership, creativity, learning, etc. Human nature, though, seems to want to find its position in the pecking order, making things like multiple intelligences more acceptable...or distorting the constructive use of differences to imply that one way of being is better than another as opposed to learning from each other...
    In that case, we go right back to the question of in what context is one style better than the other? As you've admitted, each type has its own strengths and is unique, which suggests that one type has the kind of strength that the other does not. Clearly in one situation, one strength is more desirable than the other. Thus, people will inevitably construct a hierarchy on the basis of what virtues they deem the most acceptable. For example, people who values socializing will have Extroversion at the top of the hierarchy and people who value originality shall have Intuition at the top of the hierarchy. We could say that people should not value one type of a virtue more than the other, but is that truly possible? It is indeed human nature to pay respect to others in accordance to how meritorious they are perceived to be. Overcoming this tendency will indeed be extremely difficult.

    However, it seems to me that your judgment that one MBTI type should not be regarded as better than another is not a conception of MBTI itself, but about morality. As far as personality profiles are concerned, you've seemingly conceded that some types are more adept at certain activities than others. Whether or not we should treat them with an equal measure of respect is a whole another question. On that note, I do not think that you've successfully defended the claim that all MBTI types are equal, it is flatly inconsistent with the assertion that they all have different strengths.


    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Two Americans with absolutely no qualifications in Psychometrics plagiarized MBTI from Jung's book, "Personality Types"...
    They didn't plagiarize anything, just distorted Jung's findings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever..
    No, he responded to this criticism that the empirical evidence consisted in his work as a psychotherapist.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #78
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    MBTI is claimed to be a personality test but it's not. It is another American scam.

    How do we know this?

    Two Americans with absolutely no qualifications in Psychometrics plagiarized MBTI from Jung's book, "Personality Types".

    And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever.

    Then they sold it as a personality test for the masses that would help us understand ourselves and get on with one another. But in fact MBTI is used for social control by the only remaining super power.

    So by telling the truth about MBTI we are speaking truth to power.

    I understand that most here identify with this power. But unfortunately for them, this is an international site with an international perspective. So it is too much to expect that all of us will willingly take part in an American scam.

    Particularly as this scam is being exported to foreign school children in their bedrooms.
    At last, a way I can achieve world domination. I wield power through MBTI!!


    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #79
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In that case, we go right back to the question of in what context is one style better than the other? As you've admitted, each type has its own strengths and is unique, which suggests that one type has the kind of strength that the other does not. Clearly in one situation, one strength is more desirable than the other. Thus, people will inevitably construct a hierarchy on the basis of what virtues they deem the most acceptable. For example, people who values socializing will have Extroversion at the top of the hierarchy and people who value originality shall have Intuition at the top of the hierarchy. We could say that people should not value one type of a virtue more than the other, but is that truly possible? It is indeed human nature to pay respect to others in accordance to how meritorious they are perceived to be. Overcoming this tendency will indeed be extremely difficult.

    However, it seems to me that your judgment that one MBTI type should not be regarded as better than another is not a conception of MBTI itself, but about morality. As far as personality profiles are concerned, you've seemingly conceded that some types are more adept at certain activities than others. Whether or not we should treat them with an equal measure of respect is a whole another question. On that note, I do not think that you've successfully defended the claim that all MBTI types are equal, it is flatly inconsistent with the assertion that they all have different strengths.
    Well, this is why I seek out the strengths of INTPs when I'm writing for academic journals because as an Ni I assume things rather than write them clearly. In some circles I'd be the better communicator, in some circles you would be. And chances are we'd naturally choose different circles, yet enrich each other's if we chose to collaborate.

    But back to the question...for example on leadership. There are examples of great leaders of all types. They lead in very different styles. They're usually attracted to different causes/companies/organizations to lead. Worldwide around 75% of leaders in every study, though, prefer TJ. Is that because TJ's make the best leaders? Or because leadership as currently defined demands rapid decisions for which criteria are measurable or replicable, and the politics involved cause FPs to say "No thank you, I'll go work elsewhere." But then all the books on corporate leadership are written by TJs (Other than Bill George, retired from Medtronics who shares he is ENFJ) and it becomes "the way" to lead. And measurements of leadership skills reflect TJ tendencies.

    Or education. The Miller Analogy Test is still a requirement for many graduate programs. Many type experts view it as an excellent indicator of Intuition, not academic ability or intelligence. I don't have the S-N official point differential on it, but in the few doctoral samplings I had it was substantial, yet the doctoral work of the S types was of at least the quality of the N's. so when we talk about strengths what are we measuring in education?

    Creativity is usually measured as some iteration on thinking outside the box. However, Sensing creativity is often based in creatively using what exists. Watch my husband build a mini golf course out of literally a few sticks of wood and a couple of toys, a course so great it keeps a dozen tweens playing for 90 minutes, and you'll see that creativity shine.

    So situations certainly cause some types to outshine others, and there's certainly a ton of evidence that we self-select into fields that use our strengths (hooray--we're not total idiots as a whole race), but in general no type is inherently superior to others.

    Oh, and on "amateur" statisticians (I guess this is hiding an answer to Victor), most women born in 1900 weren't allowed to finish high school--or men either. I think the grad rate was around 25%. Fewer still went to college. Katherine Briggs actually did in the 1890's because her father was a professor; Myers did in 1916; her father was head of the gov't Bureau of Standards. They actually sometimes talked stats at the kitchen table.

    More important, though, any type can develop a skill if they need it to serve an overall passion. For the research behind Step III, where Myers was correlating the research items not included in Form G, predicting how different combinations of up to 20 items correlated with such things as college retention, leadership success, and so on, she actually developed 2 statistical methods that no one else used until supercomputers were available to do the computations. People of former generations thought less of formal credentials and more of learning what they needed to know to accomplish what they needed to accomplish.

    My own grandfather (b. 1887) was only allowed to attend school through 8th grade, his wife through 4th grade. They read the Encyclopedia Brittanica for kicks at night (were doing it the first night my dad visited and scared that North Dakota basketball player to death). They were self-taught accountants and successfully ran what became a small manufacturing firm. There are millions of examples of self-taught experts outdoing credentialed individuals--anyone heard of Harvard dropout Bill Gates?
    edcoaching

  10. #80
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edcoaching View Post
    Well, this is why I seek out the strengths of INTPs when I'm writing for academic journals because as an Ni I assume things rather than write them clearly. In some circles I'd be the better communicator, in some circles you would be. And chances are we'd naturally choose different circles, yet enrich each other's if we chose to collaborate.

    But back to the question...for example on leadership. There are examples of great leaders of all types. They lead in very different styles. They're usually attracted to different causes/companies/organizations to lead. Worldwide around 75% of leaders in every study, though, prefer TJ. Is that because TJ's make the best leaders? Or because leadership as currently defined demands rapid decisions for which criteria are measurable or replicable, and the politics involved cause FPs to say "No thank you, I'll go work elsewhere." But then all the books on corporate leadership are written by TJs (Other than Bill George, retired from Medtronics who shares he is ENFJ) and it becomes "the way" to lead. And measurements of leadership skills reflect TJ tendencies.

    Or education. The Miller Analogy Test is still a requirement for many graduate programs. Many type experts view it as an excellent indicator of Intuition, not academic ability or intelligence. I don't have the S-N official point differential on it, but in the few doctoral samplings I had it was substantial, yet the doctoral work of the S types was of at least the quality of the N's. so when we talk about strengths what are we measuring in education?

    Creativity is usually measured as some iteration on thinking outside the box. However, Sensing creativity is often based in creatively using what exists. Watch my husband build a mini golf course out of literally a few sticks of wood and a couple of toys, a course so great it keeps a dozen tweens playing for 90 minutes, and you'll see that creativity shine.

    So situations certainly cause some types to outshine others, and there's certainly a ton of evidence that we self-select into fields that use our strengths (hooray--we're not total idiots as a whole race), but in general no type is inherently superior to others.

    Oh, and on "amateur" statisticians (I guess this is hiding an answer to Victor), most women born in 1900 weren't allowed to finish high school--or men either. I think the grad rate was around 25%. Fewer still went to college. Katherine Briggs actually did in the 1890's because her father was a professor; Myers did in 1916; her father was head of the gov't Bureau of Standards. They actually sometimes talked stats at the kitchen table.

    More important, though, any type can develop a skill if they need it to serve an overall passion. For the research behind Step III, where Myers was correlating the research items not included in Form G, predicting how different combinations of up to 20 items correlated with such things as college retention, leadership success, and so on, she actually developed 2 statistical methods that no one else used until supercomputers were available to do the computations. People of former generations thought less of formal credentials and more of learning what they needed to know to accomplish what they needed to accomplish.

    My own grandfather (b. 1887) was only allowed to attend school through 8th grade, his wife through 4th grade. They read the Encyclopedia Brittanica for kicks at night (were doing it the first night my dad visited and scared that North Dakota basketball player to death). They were self-taught accountants and successfully ran what became a small manufacturing firm. There are millions of examples of self-taught experts outdoing credentialed individuals--anyone heard of Harvard dropout Bill Gates?
    There is one prominent recurring theme in your post. People who fit a certain personality profile tend to be rewarded the most in society and it tends to be assumed that their way is the only way to be successful. For example, it is surmised that a good leader must have Te qualities and a good computer scientist must have a formal college degree.

    That isn't true as non-Te people can become good leaders and Bill Gates who is arguably the best computer scientist in the history of the discipline was a college drop out. That's all well and good, however, it does not at all sidestep my criticism. You can train an Introvert to be gregarious and sociable, just like you can train an Fi person to handle tasks that Te types excel at. However, the bottom line remains that Te offers people a natural advantage at leadership and extroversion offers people a natural advantage at socializing.

    The mistake folk typologists frequently make consists in assuming that a good leader can only be a Te type or a sociable person can only be Extroverted. They fail to understand the fact that there are many reasons why a person is sociable or a good leader, the fact that they may be a Te or an Extroverted type is just one very small contributing factor. In fact, it is insignificant enough for us to assume that individuals of radically different types could have the same virtues.

    In this respect the study of typology from the perspective of temperament becomes important. It defines type as a mere natural tendency rather than a solid personality trait. If you define MBTI as a combination of character profiles, people will be inclined to assume that their type is something immutable and fundamental to the very essence of their being. I admit that this is not evidence of a fault of MBTI itself but rather of the interpretive error that people make, however, it is desirable to rely on a system that is less prone to misunderstandings that cause multitudes of people to be maligned and marginalized on a basis of a certain personality trait that appears to establish the limitations of their abilities but actually does not.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Reynierse's revised type theory
    By Seymour in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-02-2017, 08:30 PM
  2. Type me (once and for all)
    By King sns in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 01:36 PM
  3. Bones of type theory contention! My Te is hanging out...
    By maliafee in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-30-2009, 11:05 PM
  4. Deliberate use of type theory in fiction
    By Quinlan in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 09:35 AM
  5. Type Theory vs. Temperament Theory
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2007, 10:38 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