it doesn't, that's sort of irrelevant to my point, so i'll rephrase to avoid the confusion: people who have Ti&Fe and people who have Fi&Te are usually 50% of MBTI survey's, no one group is bigger then the other, which means it is pretty likely that at least 50% of the people who participated in the psychological experiments were Ti users.
now, if the psychological experiments had a 50% of the test subjects able to process new facts with ease while only 50% had a hard time, you could argue that one of the groups might have being TiFe users, or that they were less likely to resist facts. but this isn't the case - instead it seems like the vast majority of test subjects responded the same, which means it isn't likely to be linked to typology, at least not for aspects that stand around the 50/50 population divide.
I got your point, just not why you had to mention specifically Ti/Fi. It could have been any other function pair (as long as they're close enough to 50/50).
Interesting point that this doesn't seem to be type related much. Not that it's surprising
the theory presented (though arguably not well supported) in the article was that people avoid recognizing facts conflicting their beliefs in areas they relate to their identities, while more accepting when they don't feel connected to it. for example, if you were an environmentalist and i gave you data that conflicted with human-induced global warming, i would essentially be saying you are wrong in your stance as an environmentalist, and thus from your subconscious's point of view, critiquing your beliefs - critiquing you for being an environmentalist - and you'd be less likely to accept the data. while not having a personal stance would make you more likely to accept the stance.
the proposed solution (self affirmation drills) does support this might be the case, but it doesn't seem like they made a comparable study between the responses to new information in regards to neutral issues vs. issues with personal stances.
See, the simple act of presenting facts isn't taken as criticism when you don't link an idea to your identity. I already got the point of the article before but it's true that I didn't realize that people actually take benign fact-presenting put in a neutral style as personal criticism when they are personally invested in whatever idea. So even when your intention is NOT to give that kind of criticism, the personally/emotionally invested person will still take it as such. Right? I don't actually know for sure, because to me, an informative leaflet mailed to me by whatever organization is definitely not taken that way. I just evaluate the facts without bringing anything personal into it.
Otoh, honestly, quite a few people including myself, unrelated to their degree of investment in an opinion, don't like the kind of criticism when the presentation is harsh and the intention is clearly negative. The lines can blur though, it's a subjective interpretation by some people... e.g. if you have good intentions with the correction but you don't present the argument in a neutral or supportive enough tone. Though, in my case, even when the tone etc is bad, I do evaluate the content itself, not just the style of the presentation. Doesn't mean I will change my opinion; I may or may not change it, that depends on the result of the evaluation. It's probably hard to be always entirely detached though, so the style of the presentation might affect me to some degree. The only thing I'm sure about is that I do evaluate content. Anyway... this latter part of my post is not what the study was about originally. Just could be linked through certain mechanisms.
You are right, it's not clear how/why the self-affirmation drills work exactly. It does make some sense though that they *do* have an effect.
(they should have... are you bored enough to write an angry letter to their university's dean that they should get the research budget for a comparitive study? i'm not, but if you happen to have the time...)
I'm not interested that much. If you are, then write the letter, I'd imagine it only takes about 5 minutes.
If by study alone, you are probably among the few participants that did so. There's no mention whether anyone did or didn't do so, only what the experiments were and how those that went through them accordingly came out on the other end.
Yeah I see. I was just surprised at the results of the study compared to how I myself work.
Personally, I'd try to explain. I know that a car for example, is beyond me but a flushing toilet, I'd like to try. I might've stated that I didn't know but I damn well would have tried. I looked up the speedometer, and I wasn't far off. When it did come to the technical details, I lacked but the general idea of it, I had down. Where to put things that read areas and how to display them at my drivers seat, what they read but not how they read. I still don't understand that, even though I am staring at the description. I guess there's another idea I need to interlock with this to understand that.
I was looking up the toilet thing when I was a child, I don't remember so I'd probably loose. I generally took things apart and put them together again as a kid. Did it a lot.
Haha good idea to say you don't know but try anyway and maybe score better than that
Which part exactly is the problem with the description of speedometer? (More specifically than "how they read")
Does this make any sense to you? Because it doesn't to me anymore.
Glad you liked it.
Er what wouldn't make sense ?
