User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 162

  1. #21
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Trying to prove MBTI would be like trying to prove that an apple should be called an apple and an orange should be called an orange.

  2. #22
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Trying to prove MBTI would be like trying to prove that an apple should be called an apple and an orange should be called an orange.
    thats not true, it is measurable/evaluatable, but it will never being 100% reliable because the descriminants are not rigorous enough, to be honest with you most segmentations are not 100% reliable

  3. #23
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It can't be proven because there's no way to test it empirically.
    And Carl Jung said that his book, "Personality Types", on which MBTI is based, contains no empirical evidence whatsoever.

  4. #24
    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 tinkerbell View Post
    That's not actually true......very little of this stuff can't be researched in a robust manner, however it would be very time consuming and expensive....

    the research design would be a hgue sample size who are taking an MBTI test preiodically over a time span... this would provide definative meaurment and give and understanidn og the % of migration and relaibility.

    From one data set you can also understand the likely reliability within that particualr sample....
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    I'm a professional researcher of good standing and have a first class honors degree -

    ...........but I do understand that you tend to spout opinions without evidence at all, so far be it from me to remove you from your little fantasies...
    You have a degree in what, exactly? Astrology?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #25
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And Carl Jung said that his book, "Personality Types", on which MBTI is based, contains no empirical evidence whatsoever.
    Clearly it's all crap then!
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  6. #26
    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 BlackCat View Post
    Clearly it's all crap then!
    Victor is too far in one direction and Tinkerbell is too far in the other. We need a happy medium of interpretation here.

    It's not all crap; it just needs to be viewed as philosophy (not science because it can't be tested) and taken with an understanding of its limitations.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #27
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    thats not true, it is measurable/evaluatable, but it will never being 100% reliable because the descriminants are not rigorous enough, to be honest with you most segmentations are not 100% reliable
    It's not measurable. Don't kid yourself. The tools used to measure personality type and cognitive functions are tests based on self-report, and we all know that self-report is vulnerable to a whole slew of potential biases.

    The only way that MBTI could be provable is if we correlated each cognitive function with an area in the brain that fires up when we use certain functions. Correlating regions of the brain with those kinds of nuances would be a feat that any neurobiologist or cognitive scientist would sell their souls for, but I don't think it will ever really happen (at least not in this lifetime).

    If we did manage to develop the ability to accurately decipher the meanings and nuances within neural signals and/or regions of the brain, I seriously doubt they'd find any real correlations to the 8 cognitive functions. Somebody made those up based on a non-empirical classification system. I can't prove that an apple should be called an apple because somebody made that labelling system up. If there were such biological backing for the cognitive functions, that'd be a huge coincidence, and Carl Jung should be getting the Nobel fucking Prize for his work.

  8. #28
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Victor is too far in one direction and Tinkerbell is too far in the other. We need a happy medium of interpretation here.

    It's not all crap; it just needs to be viewed as philosophy (not science because it can't be tested) and taken with an understanding of its limitations.
    Yeah, I just find it absolutely ridiculous that even though you can use this system quite well and apply it to your life to help you understand people; that some people still think it's crap because there is no evidence. (wow longest sentence ever)
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  9. #29
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    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.

    You have a degree in what, exactly? Astrology?

    Business (inc statistics and strategy)....

    There is only a % of error involved in MBTI... evaluation only measure the scale of the issue it doens't solve it.

    GOOD segmentations always carry error as do any peice of research... evaluating a research (which MBTI is - its self completion), you would quantify the vagueries - and track them over time... to be honest, I think the error will be larger than it needs to be with soem tightening of the scales, but it's good enough for use, or it simply wouldn't have any internal reliability at all.. my guess would be around 80%-90% + reliable.... but that is guess work...

  10. #30
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander29 View Post
    I hear time after time that MBTI is only a set of logical groupings, it's not scientifically proven, you can't use it to dogmatically, etc. I then hear you need to consider the nuances of how the functions may be ordered, how strong they are etc.
    You may also be combining more than one person's view on it.

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