Yes, I am. I prefer it to being credulous, but it takes all sorts.
First of all, I very much doubt he funds his "research" out of his own pocket or the profit he makes from selling pop-psych books/giving talks/running workshops.
Secondly, I'm not suggesting that he shouldn't make a living by any means he sees fit, I'm simply suggesting that it's difficult to take him seriously as the "neuroscientist" he seems to think he is. (Note, his background is actually systems science, he is a computer geek, not a brain expert.)
Fair enough. I just interpreted what you said earlier as a little too judgmental
(and thanks for the specifics). And do you mind if I jump in below with my thoughts on that too?
I do believe that the commerciality (new word to add to firefox dictionary!) of MBTI compromises its legitimacy as a psychometric instrument. By which I mean, a lot of people are invested in seeing it as valid, despite evidence to the contrary. And that means the truth has a tendency to be clouded / diluted.
I have heard this brought up before too. What we really need is a larger community to form around alternate models more, ideally ones that are more modern/cutting edge/new/etc, like I Big 5 aka SLOAN aka OCEAN (seriously just settle on one name!) because I've heard it takes neuroticism into account (I also do think that non perfect types in MBTI should be created to explain mental disorders or natural variance that is going to occur). I like the name SLOAN the best but I have bias since that's how I heard about it first but now I'm getting off topic (Last time I took it I got RLUEI I believe). In an "ideal" world again, we would ALL have knowledge of multiple tests at our disposal to "fill in the gaps" of one type system and provide it with a similar viewpoint from a different prism. I am kind of the theory that it doesn't matter how many flawed systems you have to showcase personality - because if you take them all together, you can probably draw conclusions and find useful information around their flaws, where they meet up. They may not be completely accurate, but that doesn't mean they are completely false either.
I think personality psychology as a whole is a slippery slope in regards to truth and validity. People go into them wanting to know more about themselves and others, and that alone creates a personal connection. I know there are more rational types, but I have a very hard time seeing how when you try to answer from what you truly believe is yourself, you will then disconnect from results. Without going deep into what compromises the soul or who we are at the deepest level, cognition (and therefore) personality, I can imagine being high on that list. So its' kind of like "Yes, I want this test to be accurate, therefore I know myself more and all these positive traits and blah blah". I think a bit of it is subconscious too. And a lot of this has to go back to my original point - myer's briggs is one of the systems with a lot more community around it and this can help boost confidence in the results being more accurate than not.
FWIW, I think your attitude - that this is entertaining fluff - is the right approach.
I saw it that way too. I would say it's a little MORE than "entertaining fluff" though. I mean he goes deeper than just for the sake of pure entertainment with EEG and so on. But I also am my own devil's advocate. Where does entertainment start and stop (same for science). I think regardless of it's categorization it is useful for the fact that it is trying to explore something with something and it has EEG behind it. Primitive science? Amateur science?
As someone who has purchased the "books" he has collaborated on in the past (which turned out to be no more than overpriced, lightweight pamphlets) I have felt pretty duped. It doesn't surprise me that his "workshops" should be similarly overpriced. I can't condemn him for charging what the market will bear - that's capitalism. I don't have to respect him as an authority though, just because he sets himself up as one. After all, what snakeoil salesman doesn't?
That was
harsh! But glad you said you have bought his previous books. I was looking into the newest one, have you have that one?
I keep going back to what you said above in the beginning about truth and validity. If we were to embrace better tests, then perhaps research like this would be more scientific and useful.