User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 35

  1. #21
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChildoftheProphets View Post
    ..since on personality tests I come out as an NF, Idealist, or Negotiator (which all roughly share the same traits).
    what you come out of a test means nothing
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  2. #22
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I once somewhere heard the sentence that anything that is not natural science, may not be labeled as science. So the term "social science" would be wrong from the start.

    Tho that's quite hard, it bears some truth, cause especially with the mbti what would be the definition of the point at which one can clearly say: ok now, I achieved validity with my social / human theories.

    ----

    Regarding scientific validity in general: I yesterday saw a documentary on television about a guy, who was a chemist and wanted to make a new plastic out of natural waste; like nut shells. His first attempts were working and he figured to make the whole process work, he'ld need a catalyst.

    So he tried like a billion different catalysts and nothing worked. Then he had the idea to try gold. Gold is nearly catalytically dead and that has been scientifically validated for centuries.

    He nevertheless tried a combination of gold and chlorine and made the thing work.

    After that he spent years to refine his theory and when he published it, it needed the scientific community in his field 3 full years to accept what he had just done, which is he rewrote what was scientifically valid.

    ---

    Therefore, in the light of both of that examples, I like to think that social science is an especially hard field to be validated at all but then again validity is never valid.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #23
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Why does some n00b ask this stupid question every other week? Why do you guys never bother to check the other 400 threads on this topic before posting it?

    sigh...

    look...this shit doesn't purport to be scientific. It's not. It's philosophy. It's just an arbitrarily made up classification system.

    It's obvious that people have different personalities, and this is just one way of choosing to classify them.

    There's no scientific claim being made at all; the whole thing is subjective and untestable.

    This is like asking for scientific proof that some movies are comedies and other movies are dramas. There's no "proof" because there's no testable claim being made; they're just made up labels for arbitrarily defined categories.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #24
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why does some n00b ask this stupid question every other week? Why do you guys never bother to check the other 400 threads on this topic before posting it?

    sigh...

    look...this shit doesn't purport to be scientific. It's not. It's philosophy. It's just an arbitrarily made up classification system.

    It's obvious that people have different personalities, and this is just one way of choosing to classify them.

    There's no scientific claim being made at all; the whole thing is subjective and untestable.

    This is like asking for scientific proof that some movies are comedies and other movies are dramas. There's no "proof" because there's no testable claim being made; they're just made up labels for arbitrarily defined categories.
    Of course you make sense, but if you say that out loud you endager yourself of being questioned in your reasoning, cause in the greater sense physics is nothing but philosophy aswell.

    In that regards I remember the quote from Stargate, when Sam asked the guy from the Tolans what he studied and he replied Quantum Science. She then said, oh cool me too, so whats the latest and he said the latest ? I studied that as part of my history classes, labeled as one of the courses "where mankind was wrong"
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  5. #25
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why does some n00b ask this stupid question every other week? Why do you guys never bother to check the other 400 threads on this topic before posting it?

    sigh...

    look...this shit doesn't purport to be scientific. It's not. It's philosophy. It's just an arbitrarily made up classification system.

    It's obvious that people have different personalities, and this is just one way of choosing to classify them.

    There's no scientific claim being made at all; the whole thing is subjective and untestable.

    This is like asking for scientific proof that some movies are comedies and other movies are dramas. There's no "proof" because there's no testable claim being made; they're just made up labels for arbitrarily defined categories.
    They do claim validity. The MBTI Manual presents all sorts of what it calls validity data. Usually with respect to trends. They observe that an MBTI type is not predictive of what an individual will do, but it is predictive of what persons of a given type will be drawn to (and quite possibly enjoy). Thus, (I guess at the level of type but not at the level of the individual) it is testable. For eg, research shows you find lots of STJs in the military, lots of SFJs as doctors, lots of SFPs as GPs, lots of TJs in management.

    I feel some tremor in the force, however. Hearing this kind of claim sets off an alarm of some kind, but I don't know why just yet because I haven't thought it through.

    However, to the point, practitioners are taught that there is "validity" data available for when a skeptical client chooses to skept while in a session and may be in need of comfort, the loving punch of "proof".
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  6. #26
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Generally, I take a theory to be any coherent set of propositions about the world. Since I've deemed MBTI incoherent, I cannot regard it as theoretical. As far as what empirical meant, I certainly had no intention of suggesting that MBTI can pass any standard of scientific investigation. One of your guesses regarding what I meant by that term was correct.
    Ah.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Precisely, MBTI is an arbitrary collection of extremely vague assertions about the behaviors of people and how they define their characters.
    Yeah, pretty much.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    There is no contradiction between our views, my purpose was merely to make an addition to your post rather than to refute one of your claims. I intend to draw a sharper distinction between MBTI and a study of temperament. This distinction is relevant because your previous conversation was about how a person's identity may be influenced by MBTI. However, at first, I think I've misinterpreted your post as suggesting that the study of MBTI was non-empirical because it dealt with a study of temperament. Yet, in your last post you've clarified that it is non-empirical for a different reason, because it cannot be supported by empirical evidence.
    Gotcha.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I am puzzled by just one thing: why you even bothered responding to that.
    I'm a teacher. I felt I had an ethical obligation. /sarcasm

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    That determines the four letter code you'll receive as a result of your MBTI test, but not the nature of your temperament. Altogether, I insist on a sharp separation between MBTI and the study of temperament. To be clear, I am not claiming that you do not recognize this difference, but merely that it has not been clearly expressed in your post. Since the above discussion was about how MBTI impacts a person's identity, it is quite relevant. By separating MBTI from the study of temperament, we effectively show that a person's four letter code has little to do with their identity, temperament or solidified habits of thought and action.
    Granted the bolded part. And I definitely agree that MBTI does not reveal anything real about a person's essential identity or their cognitive proclivities. My previous post was probably unclear on this matter because I honestly did not have that distinction in mind as I was posting.

    I was mostly concerned with the idea that the MBTI instrument can say anything accurate about one's outward behavior (which it cannot...for the methodological reasons I mentioned); I had not even broached the question of whether MBTI can say anything accurate about one's essential temperament or identity.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #27
    Senior Member Chunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChildoftheProphets View Post
    Dr Helen Fisher - Biological Anthropologist - Home Page

    Also, the basic premise of her personality theory is that the behaviors of Artisans, Guardians, Rationals, and Idealists (whom she calls Explorers, Builders, Directors, and Negotiators) are based on the dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen systems, respectively.

    Based on what you guys have said, she may have more empirical evidence than Kiersey does, although still not enough to make SciAm Mind happy (I read an article last year that critiqued her findings).
    Curious: has she explained why male negotiators seem to be every bit as negotiator-ish as their female counterparts?
    "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."
    Thoreau

  8. #28
    Member peterk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Jung's theory of psychological type(the MBTI is an extension of that theory) posits that types are modes of consciousness,i.e., the types are different kinds of mind. The BIG-5 is a theory about what is in those minds. Jung/MBTI theory is more concerned with the forest(type) while the BIG-5 is more concerned with the trees(traits).

    All psychological tests are of a statistical nature that rely on imperfect questions that may be given imperfect responses depending on the mood of the individual. In spite of all these factors the fact that the MBTI accords with Jung's theory is impressive.

  9. #29
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    They're all 'tests' trying to explain a complex concept with a multitude of intricate, interwoven factors, into a black and white easy to understand phraze.

    It doesn't work fully, and never will, regardless of the test.

    Yeu can't dump the entirety of the planet's population into 16 boxes and pretend that we are all clones of 16 people and there is no variation at all.

    Obviously, each test is flawed in its' own way, no matter how much, or how little evidence there is for them. They are attempting to quantify things which can't be quantified.

    I'm fine with that; I do it myself all the time. It's an easy to understand generic 'close' model that can be reasonably semi-accurate, as long as yeu take it with a grain of salt that it can't measure things perfectly.

    A combonation, such as MBTI+Enneagram, tends to be more useful, since they are testing completely different areas of ones' behaviour, and they obviously influence each other, and testing one or the other won't give accurate results. A 7w6 entp is not the same as a 3w4 entp by any means, and even there, there are distinctions among even those subgroups.

    The best we can do is classify whot we know, to the best of our ability. Some tests may have further factors that determine more aspects, but none determines all. There is no magical "do this test and we know who yeu are"; the closest we can get is a vague insight through a thick fog.

    If yeu understand that, then yeu can appreciate such, and make use of the generic information presented, without taking it too strictly.

    MBTI is not some uber-godlike-perfect description of human behaviour. Whot it does do, is try to group people using whot makes "sense for the most part". Everyone is E and everyone is I at different times in their lives; mbti just assumes that the dominant of the two is yeur 'tendancy' to do one or the other more frequently. If yeu take it as general tendancies it's great. Same as most of these other models. Some may be more 'accurate', by testing different factors than others. They're still all inherently flawed however.

    I have no perfect clone of myself, no doppleganger. I have some which are vaguely close, which may be very similar in some regards, but no perfect identical twin. I can still be understood, though, in a more generic sense. I think we should at least TRY to understand each other, even if it's flawed or inaccurate to some degree. To give up just because it's impossible to be flawless in the evaluation is foolish.

  10. #30
    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 Kalach View Post
    They do claim validity. The MBTI Manual presents all sorts of what it calls validity data. Usually with respect to trends. They observe that an MBTI type is not predictive of what an individual will do, but it is predictive of what persons of a given type will be drawn to (and quite possibly enjoy). Thus, (I guess at the level of type but not at the level of the individual) it is testable. For eg, research shows you find lots of STJs in the military, lots of SFJs as doctors, lots of SFPs as GPs, lots of TJs in management.
    Any such research is inherently bullshit because there's no way to prove the types of the people in question.

    The best you can do is show that, for instance, many people in the military come out as xSTJ on a type test...unfortunately type tests frequently don't correspond to reality. There's currently no way to objectively verify anyone's type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I feel some tremor in the force, however. Hearing this kind of claim sets off an alarm of some kind, but I don't know why just yet because I haven't thought it through.

    However, to the point, practitioners are taught that there is "validity" data available for when a skeptical client chooses to skept while in a session and may be in need of comfort, the loving punch of "proof".
    Yep, the MBTI people do a lot of stupid shit. I think it's pretty clear in Jung's work, though, that he didn't believe his ideas could be tested objectively through a self-report inventory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Obviously, each test is flawed in its' own way, no matter how much, or how little evidence there is for them. They are attempting to quantify things which can't be quantified.

    The best we can do is classify whot we know, to the best of our ability. Some tests may have further factors that determine more aspects, but none determines all. There is no magical "do this test and we know who yeu are"; the closest we can get is a vague insight through a thick fog.
    Yay! Somebody gets it!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. The pitfalls of personality typing, and the nascence of neuroscience
    By karmacoma in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-08-2013, 04:47 PM
  2. relation of face shape and personality
    By GirlAmerica in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 10-06-2013, 11:22 AM
  3. Fi, Fe and the concept of Personal Integrity
    By PeaceBaby in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-06-2010, 02:28 AM
  4. Study of brain sizes and personality
    By /DG/ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 08:44 AM
  5. Evaluating sources of science facts and what is the current scientific viewpoint
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 08:00 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