User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 162

  1. #41
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Tinkerbell, you are so far the only "psychologist"/"scientist" I know that says MBTI is scientific.

    Have we not already said that questionnaires are susceptible to a whole slew of biases? How do you evaluate for internal reliability? I don't see how doing it again after 6months is going to eliminate errors in self-report. Science doesn't just repeat a bunch of correlatory experiments and statistical analyses to prove that they've reached a conclusion. They find a correlation and then attempt to find a causal relationship. Where is the causal relationship here? What causes certain cognitive functions in a person? How can we use this causal relationship to measure cognitive functions?
    It's called internal consistency, and we can test for this in MBTI, and major universities do. We can also test construct validity, and test-retest reliability. This is empirical evaluation.

  2. #42
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitzy View Post
    dont hate. astrology rules
    Motion to evict any ENTP club members who are interested in astrology and cast them into the ENFP club.

  3. #43
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It's called internal consistency, and we can test for this in MBTI, and major universities do. We can also test construct validity, and test-retest reliability.
    I don't really see how this test/retest process eliminates error. You are still relying on self-report. If people have it in their head that they behave a certain way, are their opinions of themselves really going to change after a few months? It'd be nice if you could actually find a biological/chemical reason for these functions, and a questionnaire doesn't really do that.

  4. #44
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    How would you go about quantifying how accurately people are able to report about themselves? The best you would come up with is, "x% of people SAY this about themselves", which doesn't actually translate into the statement being true.

    So you could do research on how people describe themselves, but I don't see any way you could quantify their accuracy in doing so. You can't translate "x% of people say this about themselves" into "x% of people actually ARE like this." Many people unconsciously answer how they would like to be/how they imagine themselves to be, and don't even realize they're not assessing themselves accurately.

    How would we quantify this?
    you don't - you measure it... and evaluate it over time...

    Unless people lie over time - which on a questionnaire that isn't discrete is REALLY difficult to do... they would be within the ball park of what their type is.

    I'm not claiming yu can definatively type people... which I think is where you head is, but you can establish levels of error.

    Also take the first wave of the data set... you can establish how close people fall between the lines of categorisation... you have multiple questions evaluating the dicotomy of NS.... if out the 5000, 100 are sat fairly tight to the mid point, then they would be grey classifications... this gets clocked up across the 4 dicotomies... which as I siad before is likely to show less than 20% based on my gut feel of wooly classifications.... say at the end of wave 1 there are 500 people who fall into mid way classifications...

    The analyst would then look at those 500 people answers the next time and see how they ahve changed etc... this is then measured etc..

    so you build up the reliability case... It begins to measure reliability... it does work...

    As I said no segmentation is 100% reliable....

  5. #45
    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
    take 5000 people - nationally represenative
    get them all to complet their MBTI questionnaire on a specific day
    (get them professionally assesed and categoriesed) - code the data base.

    This data can be evaludated for internal reliability

    6 months (maybe a year) later do it again - code to the data base
    Check out which answers have changed - check out which MBTI classifications ahve changed (instantly you've provide SOME evidence of sustainability of classification.

    Keep repeating and evaluating for say waves....

    Each wave would cost in data collection ... est 300k....(maybe more)

    So very expensive to do, but far from impossible at all.

    As I said in my post to SW, I'd guess it is reliable about 80-90% of the time... or it simily wouldn't work on mass level

    It's internal maths of a large sample, and repeated over time and compared between waves....

    Probably a far less sexy answer than you want, but it will establish the degree of error of MBTI as a device
    I'd prefer that nothing in my interactions with you involve the topic of sex at all, thanks.

    Anyway even if people consistently test the same way, you still haven't solved the problem of self-report because there's no guarantee that the way people describe themselves is accurate.

    So let's say we did this experiment and 16% of people tested ISFJ. Even if we repeated it later and even if exactly the same 16% of people tested ISFJ, we'd still be nowhere because we have no idea how accurately any of those people described themselves during the testing process. All we know is "16% of people DESCRIBE themselves as ISFJ."

    We'd still have no idea whether those people genuinely use the cognitive processes we've labeled I, S, F and J more often than any others. They could all be ENTPs who imagine themselves to be ISFJs, for all we know.

    The "80-90% margin of error" that you describe would only cover the consistency in results between repeated waves of testing--it still doesn't do anything to guarantee the descriptive accuracy of any of the tests in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    you don't - you measure it... and evaluate it over time...

    Unless people lie over time - which on a questionnaire that isn't discrete is REALLY difficult to do... they would be within the ball park of what their type is.

    I'm not claiming yu can definatively type people... which I think is where you head is, but you can establish levels of error.

    Also take the first wave of the data set... you can establish how close people fall between the lines of categorisation... you have multiple questions evaluating the dicotomy of NS.... if out the 5000, 100 are sat fairly tight to the mid point, then they would be grey classifications... this gets clocked up across the 4 dicotomies... which as I siad before is likely to show less than 20% based on my gut feel of wooly classifications.... say at the end of wave 1 there are 500 people who fall into mid way classifications...

    The analyst would then look at those 500 people answers the next time and see how they ahve changed etc... this is then measured etc..

    so you build up the reliability case... It begins to measure reliability... it does work...

    As I said no segmentation is 100% reliable....
    People don't have to consciously lie; they just have to mistakenly describe themselves inaccurately. We have no hard evidence that any of MBTI's descriptors actually fit real neurochemical processes biologically in the first place, and no idea how well the test correlates with people's genuine psychological types.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #46
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Motion to evict any ENTP club members who are interested in astrology and cast them into the ENFP club.
    now now, someone is getting bitter and twisted :

  7. #47
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Sure, you might choose to view MBTI as a form of poetry or religious belief.

    Jung stated that his work was not based on empirical evidence or reason.

    And Carl Jung himself made it plain he was founding a form of modern secular religion.

    Jung was not a man of the Enlightenment.
    Let's be honest here: there's nothing wrong with disputing the accuracy of Jung's ideas, but classifying it as a "religion" is nothing but knee-jerk hyperbole. That sort of talk only seeks to characterise those with an interest in it as mindless sheep, and as such it's nothing but childish, dismissive and ignorant. Don't think you're helping by talking in these terms, because you're really not.
    Hello

  8. #48
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'd prefer that nothing in my interactions with you involve the topic of sex at all, thanks.
    [/B].
    WTF LOL

  9. #49
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    So let's say we did this experiment and 16% of people tested ISFJ. Even if we repeated it later and even if exactly the same 16% of people tested ISFJ, we'd still be nowhere because we have no idea how accurately any of those people described themselves during the testing process. All we know is "16% of people DESCRIBE themselves as ISFJ."

    We'd still have no idea whether those people genuinely use the cognitive processes we've labeled I, S, F and J more often than any others. They could all be ENTPs who imagine themselves to be ISFJs, for all we know.
    That!!

  10. #50
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitzy View Post
    dont hate. astrology rules
    Astrology is so popular it can be found at the back of any woman's magazine and in many newspapers.

    Astrology is even more popular than MBTI.

    People will believe anything and the proof is that they do, even astrology.

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