1. ## Field

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

An echo.

2. Originally Posted by wildcat
What is wrong with statistics?
It is dependent of the field.

An echo.
An echo, because that is the response inherently sought.
Field dependence is dictated, subconsciously or not, by the mind(s) that chose that field.
Hence statistical tests are merely conceits to justify the nebulous subconscious into the concrete conscious.

i.e., the answer was a given from the start.

It merely required affirmation.
Stretch it further: affirmation was required due to fear.
Mostly. (this is my escape clause. hehe)

Ryunosuke Akutagawa's In a Grove.
We choose the field, we choose the statistics, we chose the answer first of all.

3. Different hammers for different trades.

4. Originally Posted by wildcat
What is wrong with statistics?
It is dependent of the field.

An echo.
So the rarity of Ns, are merely a projection of our wish to be rare. The prevalence of Ss, for e.g. are merely because we're dependent on them, to define us. If the curve is intrinsically raised to qualify as an N, statistically, there'd be fewer. This is our echo to be unique, not the true answer of the existence and rarity of each type.

Same with E/I, T/F, P/J.

So the MBTI is merely a projection and construction of our desire to be unique?

The same way the shadow defines the person. 2 types in each person, means for e.g. the INFJ is not as rare as believed to be. All ESTPs could be said to be INFJs too?

So we could fold the wheel into half, literally? 8 types.

Corresponding to 8 functions.

We can reduce the wheel to 1 then.

i.e. no type is rare. We're all the same type. It is just in what order.

I'm not special!!!

5. one of the things I've learned in every statistics class I've taken, whether poli sci stats, psych stats or even bio stats ( WHY?!?) is that the statistic is there for us to warp and use to prove that we are right

as Mark Twain said "there are 3 types of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics"

almost anything can be looked at from the right perspective to say what you want for it to- census results, exit polls or the MBTI

6. 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&#37; disfavor something can easily be spinned as over half interviewed likes something.

7. Originally Posted by aelan
i.e. no type is rare. We're all the same type. It is just in what order.

I'm not special!!!
*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.

8. Originally Posted by aelan
So the rarity of Ns, are merely a projection of our wish to be rare. The prevalence of Ss, for e.g. are merely because we're dependent on them, to define us. If the curve is intrinsically raised to qualify as an N, statistically, there'd be fewer. This is our echo to be unique, not the true answer of the existence and rarity of each type.

Same with E/I, T/F, P/J.

So the MBTI is merely a projection and construction of our desire to be unique?

The same way the shadow defines the person. 2 types in each person, means for e.g. the INFJ is not as rare as believed to be. All ESTPs could be said to be INFJs too?

So we could fold the wheel into half, literally? 8 types.

Corresponding to 8 functions.

We can reduce the wheel to 1 then.

i.e. no type is rare. We're all the same type. It is just in what order.

I'm not special!!!
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.

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

10. Given the subtext of this thread, Palahniuk quotes seems altogether (in)appropriate.

#### 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