User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 162

  1. #71
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    [QUOTE=tinkerbell;993831]
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Seconded.




    It can be evaluated for consistency, not accuracy in its descriptions.[/QUOTE]

    thats not science....

    You want to actuarely prove that all ENTP's tested are bonefide ENTPS... my test wont do that nor does it have to be... it measures the overall segmentations reliability...and gives you a score of accurace over time... that is evidencing it's fitness for purpose....

    As I said before ALL segmentation have errors, the fact it's self completion is irespective.... the test I suggested will actually identify if there are specific scales/questions that cause the grey areas (this is how you would IMPROVE the MBTI tool).

    Providing that 80%/90% of all people would classify themslves as a specific type - is evidence of fitness for purpose (and would be very good....) .
    Once again, it doesn't matter how many people would classify themselves as a specific type if those people don't have any background in Jung's cognitive functional theories (upon which all of the MBTI questions are based and for which there is no empirical evidence.)

    If your intention is simply to prove that x% of people describe themselves in a certain way, then great. Knock yourself out--that's just not very useful at all when it comes to accurately typing people.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #72
    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 VagrantFarce View Post
    I'd just like to say that this thread is a wonderful example of the limits of a dogmatic Extraverted Thinking stance.

    "Empirical evidence or it didn't happen! LALALALALA"
    Actually the main people arguing against the testing of psychological type here are Ti types.

    The dogmatic Te stance here would be, "All of this is completely useless without an empirical test."

    But that's not even what we're saying. We think typology has very significant uses, just not in a way that can be quantified or measured.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #73
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    I'd just like to say that this thread is a wonderful example of the limits of a dogmatic Extraverted Thinking stance.

    "Empirical evidence or it didn't happen! LALALALALA"
    Science relies on extroverted thinking. Logical theories are cool and all, but they don't mean anything until you've proven them empirically.

  4. #74
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Don't get confused between measuring effectivness of MBTI questionnaire with absolute psycological accuracy...

    Say you take 16 INTPs each wave the test, their numbers change a wee bit for speicifc scales (and you notice similar changes on those scales for other claassifications), you may then take the results and create a more dynamic questionnaire.

    MBTI clasifications are DESCRIPTORS of type not definers... hence the test I suggest proves the MBTI questionnaire rleiability... how reliable the descrptors are of MBTI type is a diffrent job...

    Take a sample of INTJs was it... who consistantly tested INTJ over time... and then get them to evaluate information about INTJS... you have the Barnham effect kicking in but you know... its just metric design again....

    You are trying to prove psycology NOT effectivess.... it's a common flaw when talking about evidence (puttin the cart before the horse).....

  5. #75
    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
    Don't get confused between measuring effectivness of MBTI questionnaire with absolute psycological accuracy...

    Say you take 16 INTPs each wave the test, their numbers change a wee bit for speicifc scales (and you notice similar changes on those scales for other claassifications), you may then take the results and create a more dynamic questionnaire.

    MBTI clasifications are DESCRIPTORS of type not definers... hence the test I suggest proves the MBTI questionnaire rleiability... how reliable the descrptors are of MBTI type is a diffrent job...

    Take a sample of INTJs was it... who consistantly tested INTJ over time... and then get them to evaluate information about INTJS... you have the Barnham effect kicking in but you know... its just metric design again....

    You are trying to prove psycology NOT effectivess.... it's a common flaw when talking about evidence (puttin the cart before the horse).....
    When you say "effectiveness", what uses would your proposed research actually have? It would be effective in doing...what? Showing how many people describe themselves in a certain way?

    It's my contention that yes, you could do this, but it wouldn't help with anything significant, nor would it bear any real resemblance to Jung's ideas. So what's the point?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #76
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The dogmatic Te stance here would be, "All of this is completely useless without an empirical test."
    Well yes, isn't that what the thread is about? "Can this be proven empirically?"

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Science relies on extroverted thinking. Logical theories are cool and all, but they don't mean anything until you've proven them empirically.
    Yes, the limits of Extraverted Thinking are that it needs to be proven empirically before it can be considered to exist. That's what I'm saying. And this thread is a wonderful exploration of that idea.
    Hello

  7. #77
    Kraken down on piracy Lux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    Say you take 16 INTPs each wave the test, their numbers change a wee bit for speicifc scales (and you notice similar changes on those scales for other claassifications), you may then take the results and create a more dynamic questionnaire.

    MBTI clasifications are DESCRIPTORS of type not definers... hence the test I suggest proves the MBTI questionnaire rleiability... how reliable the descrptors are of MBTI type is a diffrent job...

    Take a sample of INTJs was it... who consistantly tested INTJ over time... and then get them to evaluate information about INTJS... you have the Barnham effect kicking in but you know... its just metric design again....

    You are trying to prove psycology NOT effectivess.... it's a common flaw when talking about evidence (puttin the cart before the horse).....
    Something that bothers me is, lets say you do take people who have consistently tested the same over time, but one person is near the 50% make on something while another is closer to the 100% mark of the same thing. These people would be sooo different, but would still be placed in the same category, right? How would you compensate for that?
    "It is not length of life, but depth of life." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Thought breeds thought." ~ Henry David Thoreau

  8. #78
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    I'd just like to say that this thread is a wonderful example of the limits of a dogmatic Extraverted Thinking stance.

    "Empirical evidence or it didn't happen! LALALALALA"
    The Enlightenment gave us evidence and reason because we are subject to self deception and illusion.

    The Enlightenment gave us evidence and reason because we are fallible.

    And the Enlightenment has been enormously successful and has given us modern science and technology, modern economics, modern liberal democracy and modern medicine. In fact the Enlightenment has given us most of the modern world.

    And the inconvenient truth is that MBTI is based on self deception and illusion rather than evidence and reason.

  9. #79
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Man, it's so easy for people to take an innocent observation too seriously. I'm sorry that I offended your precious sensibilities.
    Hello

  10. #80
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    When you say "effectiveness", what uses would your proposed research actually have? It would be effective in doing...what? Showing how many people describe themselves in a certain way?

    It's my contention that yes, you could do this, but it wouldn't help with anything significant, nor would it bear any real resemblance to Jung's ideas. So what's the point?

    If 450 people describe themselves consistantly wave on wave as INTP (in the survey I pre defined) then the MBTI questionnaire is seen as being reliable X% of the time (we would have expected there to be 500 INTPs). Ie the sample has consitently calssed themselves as being INTP. By doing this with AL mbti - you estblaish the questionnaire reliability at identify a group this is then called INTP....

    Now your second issue is INTP definition... MBTI discribes INTPS as thinking first, doing second, less sociable, more theoretical etc... this can be establsihed and measured and to an extent challenged by running quant research with INTPs.

    You may develope a lifestyle questionnaire you get all MBTI people to fill in in addition to their MBTI questionnaire... this can establish how well Myers Briggs described each group... beacuse the group should pick up on the same INTP qualities MB used when describing this group.

    I know you desperately want to get into functional analysis but it's simply not nessesary.... I'm an innovative person who happens to score ENTP, not the other way round...

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