Field

[wildcat]

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

Field dependence dictates an answer.
An answer?

An echo.

 

[elfinchilde]

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

Field dependence dictates an answer.
An answer?

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.

 

[JAVO]

Different hammers for different trades.

 

[white]

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

Field dependence dictates an answer.
An answer?

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!!!

 

[miss fortune]

one of the things I've learned in every statistics class I've taken, whether poli sci stats, psych stats or even bio stats doh: 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

 

["?"]

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.

 

[nightning]

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.

 

[elfinchilde]

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.

 

[The Ü™]

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

 

[Night]

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

 

[The Ü™]

I was more responding to Aelan's quote of "I'm not special." And I automatically thought of a Fight Club quote.

But at least let us continue to live the illusion that we're special and better than everyone else!

 

[elfinchilde]

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

??

 

[ygolo]

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

Field dependence dictates an answer.
An answer?

An echo.

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.

 

[lastrailway]

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

Field dependence dictates an answer.
An answer?

An echo.

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.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

But at least let us continue to live the illusion that we're special and better than everyone else!

Works for me.

 

[wildcat]

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.

Affirmation was required due to fear.
There we have the motive. The motive to most things.

The less sure we are, the more we need affirmation.
Do people see what is objectively there?
They see what is in their head.

You see it in the court. In the procedure of the trial.
Witnesses in their little boxes.
They tell the tale.

Did you see mr Burroughs in your garden last night?
-Yes.
*points towards mr Burroughs*
- It was this man?
- Yes.

A court procedure has an astounding resemblance to statistics.

In the way how it is used.
To befuddle.

People see what is in their head.
The organ of sight is the mind.
I have not read In a Grove. It must have been a great story.
Ryunosuke Akutagawa told the truth. We chose the answer.

 

[wildcat]

Different hammers for different trades.

The 17th Century was a great time.

 

[wildcat]

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!!!

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.

 

[nightning]

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...

 

[wildcat]

one of the things I've learned in every statistics class I've taken, whether poli sci stats, psych stats or even bio stats doh: 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

I say you have been to many classes.
I took only one statistics class, in math. I did not pass. I remember the math teacher was upset. She could not understand.
I could not understand either. Statistics, that is.

Perspective is dependent on the horizon. Literally, the horizon blocks the view. That is why you do not see the circle of the rainbow on the ground.
The old masters of painting used the perspective to hide things.

Mark Twain was an observant chap. Letters from the Earth was a great book.