User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 162

  1. #111
    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 tcda View Post
    I can predict what result people will get, ask them to take the test, and usually I'm right...how could I do this with a theory with no validity?

    That's the point though it's a theory...which in science is on a higher plane than empirical evidence, i.e., it uses the latter to support it but can't be simply reduced to it, it requires someone to generalize from evidence and use reasoning to explain it.
    In science a theory is somewhere between a hypothesis and a law. It usually has a fair amount of empirical evidence behind it, but hasn't been established enough to be considered a law. Once it has enough empirical evidence that it's virtually undisputed, it becomes a law, but being a theory doesn't put something on a "higher plane than empirical evidence" by any means.

    Anyway, being able to guess how people will test (I can often do this too) just means you can guess how they will describe themselves. This still doesn't prove anything about whether those self-descriptions are accurate, or whether they fit in with Jung's cognitive theories or not.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #112
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    [QUOTE=simulatedworld;994701]
    In science a theory is somewhere between a hypothesis and a law. It usually has a fair amount of empirical evidence behind it, but hasn't been established enough to be considered a law. Once it has enough empirical evidence that it's virtually undisputed, it becomes a law, but being a theory doesn't put something on a "higher plane than empirical evidence" by any means.
    I'll take your word on the difference between theory, hypothesis and law. Makes sense actually, I was sloppy...slap me on the back of the hand.

    Regarding "higher plane"...I thought that bit was true though (funny that seeing as I wrote it)...wouldn't the theory of evolution for example be considered on a higher plane than a simple peice of empirical evidence (a fossil let's say)

    Anyway, being able to guess how people will test (I can often do this too) just means you can guess how they will describe themselves. This still doesn't prove anything about whether those self-descriptions are accurate, or whether they fit in with Jung's cognitive theories or not
    This just shows your Ne is better than mine :p To be honest I usually base myself on how I've observed someone's behaviour, and just assume they will answer honestly.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  3. #113
    Senior Member sofmarhof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    In science a theory is somewhere between a hypothesis and a law. It usually has a fair amount of empirical evidence behind it, but hasn't been established enough to be considered a law. Once it has enough empirical evidence that it's virtually undisputed, it becomes a law, but being a theory doesn't put something on a "higher plane than empirical evidence" by any means.
    Really? I've always heard (in response to people who say "evolution is just a theory") that theory and law are completely different—a theory is 100% true and no amount of verification can ever make a theory a law.

  4. #114
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Theory= scientific statement that has some truth to it because of empirical evidence supporting it (at a given time)but is no where near infallible. However, with most scientific theories, they get debunked over time. Ex. Parental investment theory
    Law= scientific statement that is practically an absolute truth because nobody could disprove it through empirical findings. Ex. Newton's Law of Gravity

    Learned the definitions from my EXTJ chemistry teachers.

  5. #115
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    How does this solve the problem of confirmation bias and the fact that MBTI relies on self-report? Suppose most people don't know how to describe themselves accurately. I've seen clear ISFJs test INTP and cling religiously to that description. The test needs to be accurate before it can be used for any real research, which is impossible given that it relies on self-report.
    If that sentence can be true then there's more than one test available, one being MBTI itself, the other being the perception (and classification) of the test subject by other individuals moderately well-versed in Jungian functional analysis, or at least, individuals moderately well-versed in type-spotting.

    This is the puzzle to me, that people can observe that MBTI gets it wrong.

    So... there was something to get right?

    Thus, the important weakness of "MBTI"... that Jungian functional analysis--the theory that the Meyer Briggs Type Indicator was developed to operationalise--doesn't come with a depth gauge. It does provide a model but doesn't describe testable links between the model and reality. In other words, we can't--neither via MBTI nor Jungian function analysis--say something like "Fe is just short hand for the [something that admits scientific testing, such as say, brain activity, or whatever]."

    I have the same general problem with, say, quantum mechanics. Quarks? Yeah, right.

    (Observe, ladies and gentlemen, the above comment is naive, and uttered knowingly naively. It does not imply anything about quantum mechanics. It does imply something about my understanding of quantum mechanics.)

    (Observe too, ladies and gentlemen, the above parenthetical comment is *not* a proof that all persons who disbelieve "MBTI" merely don't understand. It is entirely possible that it is I who doesn't understand.)


    It's a model, a categorisation. One that hasn't described its basis for making that categorisation. The evil mastermind left it to us to observe for ourselves. Kinda cultish that way, one does have to say.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  6. #116
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ The "something to get right" is my personal interpretation of Jung's functions. Most MBTI enthusiasts don't know much about them and place too much faith in their MBTI test results.

    Note that when I say "clear ISFJs" though, that's just my interpretation. It can't be proven or verified, but I do believe that people who have made an effort to study the functional theory will tend to make more accurate assessments.

    The musical genres parallel works well here. Suppose I were to claim that Jay-Z is a jazz fusion artist. There's not any empirical definition of what constitutes jazz fusion, but anyone who's really studied music would still be able to tell you I'm wrong. Make sense?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #117
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The musical genres parallel works well here. Suppose I were to claim that Jay-Z is a jazz fusion artist. There's not any empirical definition of what constitutes jazz fusion, but anyone who's really studied music would still be able to tell you I'm wrong. Make sense?
    It does. But it hurts. It burns. I may go blind.

    Leaving it all up to, roughly, saying "anyone who's really immersed themselves in the day-to-day reality of this thing will see it" is very upsetting for this Te user. We're floating free of anchors, drifting through the sequence of perceptions and sensations that come our way, what others of less hardy constitution squeamishly insist is to be called "fixed and stable reality". Pity the young heads who need to call it fixed and stable, and rely on it.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  8. #118
    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
    It does. But it hurts. It burns. I may go blind.

    Leaving it all up to, roughly, saying "anyone who's really immersed themselves in the day-to-day reality of this thing will see it" is very upsetting for this Te user. We're floating free of anchors, drifting through the sequence of perceptions and sensations that come our way, what others of less hardy constitution squeamishly insist is to be called "fixed and stable reality". Pity the young heads who need to call it fixed and stable, and rely on it.
    That's a shame. My INTJ younger brother is a psych major and thinks typology/Jung are utterly ridiculous and totally useless. If the lack of empirical evidence is that unsettling to you, typology may not be for you.

    Note the pretentious "non-science" attitude NTJs often take toward philosophy. They don't see any reason to bother with it if you can't stick it in a test tube and write down a number. Pity.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #119
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That's a shame. My INTJ younger brother is a psych major and thinks typology/Jung are utterly ridiculous and totally useless. If the lack of empirical evidence is that unsettling to you, typology may not be for you.

    Note the pretentious "non-science" attitude NTJs often take toward philosophy. They don't see any reason to bother with it if you can't stick it in a test tube and write down a number. Pity.

    I bet they make great detectives though!

  10. #120
    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 marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I bet they make great detectives though!
    Great evil overlords, too.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-05-2017, 08:06 AM
  2. Where is the communication style test thread about MBTI types?
    By Jayce in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-07-2016, 10:15 AM
  3. Which MBTI type is the most confusing one?
    By iHeartCats in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2014, 11:53 AM
  4. Where is the burden of proof in a misunderstanding?
    By Anew Leaf in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-20-2012, 08:14 PM
  5. Where is the "watcher"?
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-22-2010, 01:31 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