Can anyone give me scientific proof that mbit or cognitive functions exist?

[SpankyMcFly]

Information aka "evidence" is only as good as it's source.

Dario Nardi, a UCLA professor and author (The neuroscience of personality) discusses personality and the lab research he has done on the subject in this video:

 

[WALMART]

This is the part of Edahn's post I was specifically agreeing with, which is why I quoted it the way I did:



But since I'm here, can you touch intelligence? What's it feel like, Jon?
Is it rough or sticky?

I see. I never found it poignant to isolate what others quote, my apologies.


Well, it's hard to say. First we would have to come to terms on the definitions of intelligence, likely a feat in itself, seeing as you may not agree such concepts can even exist.


Once we get past this inherent hangup, I would turn towards the neural pathways in the brain. Let's say we decide we are going to measure intelligence in context of mathematical ability. Perhaps with a nano-scale rover I could traipse the interconnectedness of albert einstein's brain, versus the kid in math class who couldn't pass geometry, who now mops floors. We could see how the neurons in einstein's mind prime groupings far irrelevant to the task at hand, and with much greater intensity, than our floor mopping subject. When Einstein thinks of numbers, he sees shapes, distances, entire concepts in a fell swoop of thought. When our floor mopping subject thinks of numbers, he likely has trouble linking them to anything at all, simply because his neural pathways are so underdeveloped for the task at hand. I would call our floor mopper unintelligent in the context of math.

All this can be directly attributed the interconnectedness of the neural pathways and the capabilities of priming, also, coincidentally, a concept greatly tied to the functions Se/Ne and Ni/Si.

 

[Jaguar]

Well, it's hard to say. First we would have to come to terms on the definitions of intelligence[...]

The answer should have been easy, Jon. Not hard.
All you need to know is the difference between abstract and concrete. A concept and an object.
I read your entire post, but you strayed from the original point.

Edahn isn't around, but I'll take a wild guess that he's as tired of people not knowing what a construct is as I am.
It's been going on in this forum for years:

"I don't have Ti."
"I don't have Te."

Constructs such as the congnitive processes are not like checking yourself for a genital herpes blister - I don't have it!
Can you touch Te? No. Can you touch a herpes blister? Yes.

That was Edahn's point - the cognitive processes are constructs. They are not objects in the physical world we can touch with our fingers.
To this day, it amazes me how many people still talk about them as if they're a carton of orange juice in the refrigerator waiting to be consumed.



*On a side note: if you want to define intelligence, there are enough of those old threads scattered around this forum to fill a litter box.

 

[cascadeco]

did you actually read what i said? i said MBTI has been tested using large samples of people (ie statistically). it's not up for discussion, it's a fact.

How so, when if we posted video profiles of all the people who supposedly 'factually' tested as a specific type on this very site, we'd all very well end up typing them differently and there'd be no bona fide consensus/objectivity being used in definitively typing someone as one and only one type?

'Factually' I tested as INTJ in my early 20's, and 'factually' I don't identify with many elements of what is propounded on this site regarding any number of things. So, that would add to the supposed statistical stats. Can you prove to me that I am an INTJ, or am not an INTJ, or am an INFJ, or am not an INFJ? Or that I'm not possibly any of the other 15 types? Whatever metrics you used on me to Prove I am a certain type and not other types would have to be used on everyone else, no bending, no caveats.

Agree re. comments on mbti being a categorical system / construct. It's trying to add structure/trends to intangibles. To encapsulate elements or trends in personality that may/do exist, but of which we may not be accounting for a great number of other things by doing so.

 

[Stanton Moore]

*On a side note: if you want to define intelligence, there are enough of those old threads scattered around this forum to fill a litter box.

^^Apropos...

 

[WALMART]

The answer should have been easy, Jon. Not hard.
All you need to know is the difference between abstract and concrete. A concept and an object.
I read your entire post, but you strayed from the original point.

Edahn isn't around, but I'll take a wild guess that he's as tired of people not knowing what a construct is as I am.
It's been going on in this forum for years:

"I don't have Ti."
"I don't have Te."

Constructs such as the congnitive processes are not like checking yourself for a genital herpes blister - I don't have it!
Can you touch Te? No. Can you touch a herpes blister? Yes.

That was Edahn's point - the cognitive proceses are constructs. They are not objects in the physical world we can touch with our fingers.
To this day, it amazes me how many people still talk about them as if they're a carton of orange juice in the refrigerator waiting to be consumed.



*On a side note: if you want to define intelligence, there are enough of those old threads scattered around this forum to fill a litter box.

I understand what you've been getting at, and it's reminiscent of the jocks in psychology arguing with my professor that it isn't a science, but speculative fiction of some sort.


The other day someone said geology doesn't know everything there is about rocks. I mistook what he said, and quipped, 'Yes, rocks do know everything there is about geology'.


Prior to coming across typology, I was big into physiology of the brain. I (and I feel it is the true goal of typology) wish to bridge the gap between what is physically, fundamentally present and what our labels are capable of ascribing.


Again, I understand your basic philosophical principle - that the things we decide to label are just that, conceptual constructs. But I do not live exclusively inside of that universe, and it certainly does not define my approach to typology. I live in a universe of observation and classification. I know that true conceptual thought is evidenced in reality; that is what I and others seek out.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=15886]jontherobot[/MENTION]

Labels and categories are constructs - that which they label or categorize are not (except in the case of labeling constructs, which is simply subcategorization)

For example: Velocity is relative but is an actual property. 'Fast' (comparatively high velocity) is relative and conceptual.

What is called 'fast' is variable as a concept - something might be fast by one comparison yet slow by another. Yet 'fast' is determined by velocity, and velocity is always velocity, all the time and everywhere because it is an actual property of things that have it.

In other words, the differences that are being categorized are not simply made up. Speculating the reasons for these differences and what they entail might some times be made up though.

 

[garbage]

I'd love to see some good, solid bridges between physiology and psychology. Data's kinda scant at the moment, though.

"I don't have Ti."
"I don't have Te."

Also, "I don't use [such-and-such]" is almost as equally absurd, and it's proclaimed all the time.

metrics

We also fail to establish what metrics we actually use when we categorize. The MBTI test? Scattered online tests? A collection of expert assessments? Metacognition?

 

[WALMART]

I'd love to see some good, solid bridges between physiology and psychology. Data's kinda scant at the moment, though.

Yes, likely so. Soon.


At the very least, thank you for seemingly appreciating what I'm reaching for here.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Personally, I agreed with everything Edahn said.

 

[Mole]

did you actually read what i said? i said MBTI has been tested using large samples of people (ie statistically). it's not up for discussion, it's a fact.

In what scientific peer review journal have the methodology and results of these tests been published?

 

[garbage]

In what scientific peer review journal have the methodology and results of these tests been published?

There's this one, a metastudy (looking at many articles testing its reliability) of sorts from Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Its conclusion?

A resounding ... ...

"Eh."

 

[pinkgraffiti]

In what scientific peer review journal have the methodology and results of these tests been published?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=mbti&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=mbti&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

Ah yes. Thank you for doing such painstaking research and finding exactly what he was looking for.

 

[greenfairy]

Scientific proof doesn't exist because they aren't really in the realm of science. It's more a categorizing/labeling system which is basically arbitrary but self-consistent enough to be useful in describing human interaction. More like a language than a scientific explanation. Science is a very specific method for understanding more concrete, observable, quantifiable, falsifiable things. Typology is a descriptive model which can be used to predict human interaction - some observation has been used to form the models, but that doesn't make it scientific.

This.

And btw this is also my argument for astrology.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

Ah yes. Thank you for doing such painstaking research and finding exactly what he was looking for.

yah. maybe i have something to do with my life ie. a job. you have fun searching the internet all day for something completely irrelevant.

 

[Stanton Moore]

There is so much more to humans than is codified by four letter...

 

[garbage]

yah. maybe i have something to do with my life ie. a job. you have fun searching the internet all day for something completely irrelevant.

I took an additional half-second out of my terribly busy life to add the word "reliability" to that search.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mbti+reliability&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

For:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was submitted to a descriptive reliability generalization (RG) analysis to characterize the variability of measurement error in MBTI scores across administrations. In general, the MBTI and its scales yielded scores with strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates, although variation was observed.

(though that article is a meta-analysis and so possibly worth a good deal.)

Against:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has achieved widespread use in organizational settings, despite the fact that research on its dimensionality has been scarce and that some studies have questioned the validity of its four-factor scoring system.

The reliability data of the MBTI bring into question the stability of the test. How is it possible that there can be a change in personality, across a short interval, when such a change should not occur? The reliability data also bring into question whether there are meaningful differences across the preference categories.

As the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator becomes increasingly popular as a management and training tool, criticisms of its reliability, validity, and effectiveness have arisen

Edwards et al. (2002) also detail a series of studies indicating that the MBTI's reliability scores increase when the instrument uses scaled response rather than dichotomous or categorisation scoring

 

[Mole]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=mbti&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

I can find no publication in a scientific peer reviewed journal of data, results and methodology.

 

[Mole]

There's this one, a metastudy (looking at many articles testing its reliability) of sorts from Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Its conclusion?

A resounding ... ...

"Eh."

And this is a Study, not a random double blind experiment.