Field

[wildcat]

*blinks* Bad assistant! *yells at her for wildcat*

I've always looked at "special" and "unique" as being good things... But now that you've mentioned it, there's a dark side to that as well. No matter! We take the good and the bad. I like special...

Thank you, nightning. I hope she heard you.
We shall see. Today I shall drop in the shop again..

 

[wildcat]

I totally agree with Whatever, in fact was going to use the same quote from Twain. Statistics are merely facts that can be manipulated for the person using the stat's benefit, ie. 45% disfavor something can easily be spinned as over half interviewed likes something.

force meat, eh?

 

[wildcat]

*nods* I suppose nobody is special...

Statistics is a lie if used incorrectly. If you define it prior to testing, it's more honest do you not agree?

Actually, statistics by itself isn't lies... it's how people chose to misinterpret it that makes lies.

That speaks of expectations... you only find what you expects to find. So lies the limitation in MBTI. You see what you expected to see... 16 types... not more, not less... with predetermined assumptions. Does the system defines people or does the system fit people? Thank you wildcat.

Yes.
They have suits for all the sizes at the store.. nothing of them fits.
They expect the person to fit the suit.
A tailor made suit fits the person.

 

[wildcat]

one type only, homo sapiens.

but in that type, a spectrum exists.

the differences lie in the degrees.

it is the degrees that give life its meanings, its colours, its shadows.

one standard deviation of separation can mean a world.

in a prism: you see white because it is the big picture. but why deny the joys of seeing the other colours, that is the detail?

you are special because you want to believe so. really? you're special because you acknowledge the white, while knowing that you are just a part of the red that makes the white.

and within you is the possibility to shade into any other colour, to be any other thing.

type is reductionistic, yes. but it gives colour. and through the colour, it enables the white to be seen.

forget neither detail nor the big picture, and you will not need statistics.

Exactly.

 

[wildcat]

You are not special.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.

Hmph.. Einie would disagree about the matter decaying..

 

[wildcat]

How to lie with statistics:
Use poor experimental design.

State that post hoc ergo propter hoc

Use the fallacy of accident or converse accident.

Use Adhoc hypothesizing to assert the existence of a statistical entity.

Use amphiboly to equate a common concept to asserted statistical entity.

You'll find employment in the KGB Disinformation Bureau no doubt.

 

[wildcat]

I disagree. In my opinion, what is really wrong with statistics is that it doesn't depend on anything, except what you want to prove. It can be something totally out of the field, totally irrelevant, though statistics tries to draw persuasive correlation where there is little or none.

Quite right.
It is as you say.
There is no disagreement.

 

[Nocapszy]

What is wrong with statistics?
It is dependent of the field.

Field dependence dictates an answer.
An answer?

An echo.

This is the problem I have with the MBTI tests.

 

[wildcat]

This is the problem I have with the MBTI tests.

Try the Cognitive Processes Test.

 

[Nocapszy]

Done it. It's better. I still prefer field analysis -- that's the point of your OP right? Seems like the other posters obscured the intent but maybe I misread.

 

[wildcat]

Done it. It's better. I still prefer field analysis -- that's the point of your OP right? Seems like the other posters obscured the intent but maybe I misread.

It depends what you mean by the field analysis.

 

[Nocapszy]

It depends what you mean by the field analysis.

Well I suppose...

Hmm...

I'm not entirely sure why I said it that way.

I prefer to use statistics more for prediction than for analysis. The field work (I'm assuming you meant field as opposed to armchair work) is the qualitative and statistics are quantitative. The two are connected -- they work together.

Two different types of calculating to get the same result.

Anyway my interpretation of the OP was that statistics were simply a quantitative echo -- not an answer -- of the inputted quality information.

 

[elfinchilde]

You are special.

The other day I dropped in a shop.
The female assistant there refused to serve me. She pretended she did not see me.
The other assistant had a client.
I waited patiently for the other assistant to serve his client.
The moment he turned his attention to me the female assistant turned her attention to the woman who was standing behind me.
She became suddenly aware of her surroundings.

Why she had to play her little game?

Because I am special, too.

*blinks* Bad assistant! *yells at her for wildcat*

I've always looked at "special" and "unique" as being good things... But now that you've mentioned it, there's a dark side to that as well. No matter! We take the good and the bad. I like special...

Yes! Bad assistant! :steam:

well, I don't give a damn what they think or say. You're MY wildcat and you're special in a very GOOD way and don't ever let anyone make you think or believe otherwise! :steam:

damn the human eyes of prejudice... ohm...

oops. did we derail the thread again? apologies....I had taken 'field' to mean the group chosen to take the test, i.e., the sample group, which is what all statistics is based upon.

 

[wildcat]

Yes! Bad assistant! :steam:

well, I don't give a damn what they think or say. You're MY wildcat and you're special in a very GOOD way and don't ever let anyone make you think or believe otherwise! :steam:

damn the human eyes of prejudice... ohm...

oops. did we derail the thread again? apologies....I had taken 'field' to mean the group chosen to take the test, i.e., the sample group, which is what all statistics is based upon.

Can you derail the derail?
Does red obstruct red?

Does wildcat charge?
Never.

Least of all the best of the best.

 

[white]

Perhaps the shop assistant wasn't feeling special that day. Sometimes you knock down others to make yourself feel better. Reduction of other types to a comfort zone.

Nocapszy's view of field as the qualitative part was interesting, I didn't read the OP that way. My own reduction.

 

[wildcat]

Perhaps the shop assistant wasn't feeling special that day. Sometimes you knock down others to make yourself feel better. Reduction of other types to a comfort zone.

Nocapszy's view of field as the qualitative part was interesting, I didn't read the OP that way. My own reduction.

There is a long tradition of shop assistants who are not feeling well.

Lastrailway and Nocapszy did not differ.
A thing of semantics.

You are your sister. Your sister is you.
The place in the loci is the environment.
It is of no account.

 

[lastrailway]

Quite right.
It is as you say.
There is no disagreement.

Oh.. apparently I misread the OP then. I though you were saying that statistics cannot separate from the field.
Or I got it wrong again?

 

[wildcat]

Oh.. apparently I misread the OP then. I though you were saying that statistics cannot separate from the field.
Or I got it wrong again?

The statistics separate from the field.
You got it right from the beginning.

 

[lastrailway]

(.. / - .... .. -. -.- / .. / .... .- ...- . -. .----. - / .-- --- -.- . -. / ..- .--. / - --- - .- .-.. .-.. -.-- --..-- / -.-- . - --..-- / ... --- / .. / -- .. --. .... - / -... . / - . .-.. .-.. .. -. --. / -. --- -. ... . -. ... . )

I really don't get it now. You didn't mean, in the OP, that statistics only reflects the field?

 

[wildcat]

(.. / - .... .. -. -.- / .. / .... .- ...- . -. .----. - / .-- --- -.- . -. / ..- .--. / - --- - .- .-.. .-.. -.-- --..-- / -.-- . - --..-- / ... --- / .. / -- .. --. .... - / -... . / - . .-.. .-.. .. -. --. / -. --- -. ... . -. ... . )

I really don't get it now. You didn't mean, in the OP, that statistics only reflects the field?

Define field.