User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 162

  1. #81
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    AN important thing about the descriptors of type... is that there will just be a skewed tendancy- it will not be definative, because there is a RANGE of tastes

    Hope this makes some sense to you...

    Either way think about a brickie... he builds a wall... you don't need to know anything about brick laying to establish if the wall there....

    You need to identify critera and meaure the wall to see if it constitues a wall....

  2. #82
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Well yes, isn't that what the thread is about? "Can this be proven empirically?"
    The only way to prove anything that is applicable to the external world is through empiricism. I can sit here and prove to you that 1+1 is 2, but that's only because I've made up that labelling system for 1, +, and 2. I can't use my a priori logical proof for 1+1= 2 for anything substantial until I see with my own eyes that a bead and another bead combine to make bead bead.

    We can go about tweaking the MBTI questionnaires and classifications all we want so that paper descriptions of behaviors match up with our categories (a kind of "proof", if you will), but we can't really prove the accuracy of MBTI until we see its backing in the physical world (via studying brain chemistry yadda yadda yadda).

  3. #83
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    MBTI is a descriptor of character, not of their physiology doh

  4. #84
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    The only way to prove anything that is applicable to the external world is through empiricism. I can sit here and prove to you that 1+1 is 2, but that's only because I've made up that labelling system for 1, +, and 2. I can't use my a priori logical proof for 1+1= 2 for anything substantial until I see with my own eyes that a bead and another bead combine to make bead bead.

    We can go about tweaking the MBTI questionnaires and classifications all we want so that paper descriptions of behaviors match up with our categories (a kind of "proof", if you will), but we can't really prove the accuracy of MBTI until we see its backing in the physical world (via studying brain chemistry yadda yadda yadda).
    ...yes, this is a Te stance. What exactly are we disagreeing about?
    Hello

  5. #85
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    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.
    Oh no you di'int.

  6. #86
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    MBTI has extremely high test-retest consistency... its problem lies in construct validity. How do we know that what we're measuring actually exists or are we merely assigning labels for something else?

    Kind of like how we assign names to color... when everything just lies on a radiation spectrum.

    MBTI is used in counseling psychology (because people find the concepts useful because people like categorizing things) and not in other psychology (because MBTI is not valid and there already exist a better lexicon-based system, namely FFM).
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  7. #87

    Default

    As a "noob" I'm interested in this thread, as it is brings to the surface a question I have about MBTI.

    I frequently wonder how granular people think they are going to be able to be when "predicting" how a person thinks/acts based on their type. I see many gross generalizations about specific types in here and that concerns me that some stereotypical behaviors are thought to be present in all people of a certain type, when it is really meant more to indicate a natural tendency.

    Life experience still has to play a huge role in a personality. For example, my father was a job-hopper, and the problem that created in our lives influenced me to be very stationary in my work, even past what might normally be comfortable for me. this might lead a person to think this "stability "trait represents a specific type, when it wasn't the natural tendancy at all, but rather an experience that developed the trait.

    My concern is that some people might think that this typology gives them the ability to judge a book by it's "cover". The science behind what I have read so far seems solid regarding determining a "type". The application of stereotypes seem to detract from BMTI's value, it seems.

  8. #88
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Kind of like how we assign names to color... when everything just lies on a radiation spectrum.


    That analogy makes me giddy with joy.
    Hello

  9. #89
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    MBTI has extremely high test-retest consistency... its problem lies in construct validity. How do we know that what we're measuring actually exists or are we merely assigning labels for something else?

    Kind of like how we assign names to color... when everything just lies on a radiation spectrum.

    MBTI is used in counseling psychology (because people find the concepts useful because people like categorizing things) and not in other psychology (because MBTI is not valid and there already exist a better lexicon-based system, namely FFM).
    ++ from me...

    MBTI is a descriptor system with limits, like anything else.... But then it's not claiming to me much more than just that... for what its worth it just calls the colour the same most of the time, which means it does work at consitantly naming, it can't paint pictures




    AND for what it's worth, there are loads of ways to test it's reliability and consistancy, I just suggested on possible approach..... you put 10 researchers into a room and you will get 10 different wway to do it with different strengths and weakenesses in the approaches... but then all research is flawed

  10. #90
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    The only way to prove anything that is applicable to the external world is through empiricism. I can sit here and prove to you that 1+1 is 2, but that's only because I've made up that labelling system for 1, +, and 2. I can't use my a priori logical proof for 1+1= 2 for anything substantial until I see with my own eyes that a bead and another bead combine to make bead bead.
    Actually, all of mathematics is based on the injunction, "Make a distinction".

    Even the natural numbers are based on the same injunction.

    And how lucky you are that you can read all about it in a lovely book by G. Spencer Brown called, "The Laws of Form".

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