Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
At 05:10 PM Saturday 5/6/2006, The Fool wrote: [snipped] Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions like the truth or rational thinking and behavior) that you are _for_? --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to dozen people I knew. And anecdotal evidince has what value in science? Well, you need not pay any attention to my report. My experience was that when I gave a test to a dozen people, I found that a bit more than half the results matched the categories into which I fit people in other ways. Moreover, since I myself did the experiment and followed the reasoning, I had an internal experience that I found convincing to myself. Guardians of birthdays, holidays and celebrations, Virgo's are generous entertainers. They enjoy and joyfully observe traditions and are liberal in giving, especially where custom prescribes. All else being equal, Virgo's enjoy being in charge. They see problems clearly and delegate easily, work hard and play with zest. Virgo's, bear strong allegiance to rights of seniority. They willingly provide service (which embodies life's meaning) and expect the same from others. vrs Pices's are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them. Precise about their descriptions, Pices's will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives Pices's so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists. Reads like an astrology collumn in the newspaper. Doesn't to me, unless of course, you pay attention to the names (like Pices and Virgo). To me, Forer's text as given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect sounds much more like an astrology column. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of science. Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to a dozen people I knew. I felt the results were accurate in about 7 of those 12 cases. So I decided it was pretty good for this kind of topic (and no good at all if you seek only 25% error.) What is the probability of 7 out of 12 people each choosing 1 out of 16 randomly? I tend to doubt the Forer effect is highly important for Myers-Briggs, although doubtless, it is somewhat important. (According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect The Forer effect ... is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. (The article also gives Forer's text.) Here are the first two paragraphs of 2 of 16 MBTI profiles from http://www.typelogic.com/; they seem to me quite different. When given a choice of which to choose, I doubt an ESFJ would choose to be described as an INTP although he or she might well choose a description closer to his or her temperament. Guardians of birthdays, holidays and celebrations, ESFJs are generous entertainers. They enjoy and joyfully observe traditions and are liberal in giving, especially where custom prescribes. All else being equal, ESFJs enjoy being in charge. They see problems clearly and delegate easily, work hard and play with zest. ESFJs, as do most SJs, bear strong allegiance to rights of seniority. They willingly provide service (which embodies life's meaning) and expect the same from others. vrs INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them. Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of science. Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to a dozen people I knew. I felt the results were accurate in about 7 of those 12 cases. So I decided it was pretty good for this kind of topic (and no good at all if you seek only 25% error.) What is the probability of 7 out of 12 people each choosing 1 out of 16 randomly? And anecdotal evidince has what value in science? I tend to doubt the Forer effect is highly important for Myers-Briggs, although doubtless, it is somewhat important. (According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect The Forer effect ... is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. (The article also gives Forer's text.) Here are the first two paragraphs of 2 of 16 MBTI profiles from http://www.typelogic.com/; they seem to me quite different. When given a choice of which to choose, I doubt an ESFJ would choose to be described as an INTP although he or she might well choose a description closer to his or her temperament. Guardians of birthdays, holidays and celebrations, Virgo's are generous entertainers. They enjoy and joyfully observe traditions and are liberal in giving, especially where custom prescribes. All else being equal, Virgo's enjoy being in charge. They see problems clearly and delegate easily, work hard and play with zest. Virgo's, bear strong allegiance to rights of seniority. They willingly provide service (which embodies life's meaning) and expect the same from others. vrs Pices's are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them. Precise about their descriptions, Pices's will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives Pices's so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists. Reads like an astrology collumn in the newspaper. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
Ok, here are a few sites for those curious: http://www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_intro.html http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as it's time to head out): http://skepdic.com/myersb.html I do have a problem with this site's dismissal of intuitive thinking; from my observations experience in the medical field, a lot of intuition (including my own) is actually based on essentially sub-conscious integration of observations with prior knowledge. It's sort of like thinking without realizing it; it seems almost magical at times because one isn't aware of the processes ongoing, as they occur so swiftly. But without a foundation of education, learned knowledge, and prior experience, 'intuition' is as likely to be wrong as not. From the first site above: INFJ: Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions. Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the common good. Organized and decisive in implementing their vision. Hmm, pretty good except for that last bit - I am *not* the best-organized person. Feeling: Naturally seek consensus and popular opinions. Unsettled by conflict; have almost a toxic reaction to disharmony. Uh, yep. OTOH, I'm split between the J and P, which makes me feel a little better, not desiring to be known as judgemental...even though in many ways, I am. INFP: Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who are important to them. Want an external life that is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable, flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened. Debbi Still A Skeptical Believer And Pragmatic Idealist Maru ;-) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
At any rate, you still test out Idealist, and in many ways that's the most important part because it's the central theme of your life. Pat, INTP but unwilling to make up my mind oh, look, a bird! BAD kitties! http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Ok, here are a few sites for those curious: http://www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_intro.html http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as it's time to head out): http://skepdic.com/myersb.html I do have a problem with this site's dismissal of intuitive thinking; from my observations experience in the medical field, a lot of intuition (including my own) is actually based on essentially sub-conscious integration of observations with prior knowledge. It's sort of like thinking without realizing it; it seems almost magical at times because one isn't aware of the processes ongoing, as they occur so swiftly. But without a foundation of education, learned knowledge, and prior experience, 'intuition' is as likely to be wrong as not. From the first site above: INFJ: Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions. Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the common good. Organized and decisive in implementing their vision. Hmm, pretty good except for that last bit - I am *not* the best-organized person. Feeling: Naturally seek consensus and popular opinions. Unsettled by conflict; have almost a toxic reaction to disharmony. Uh, yep. OTOH, I'm split between the J and P, which makes me feel a little better, not desiring to be known as judgemental...even though in many ways, I am. INFP: Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who are important to them. Want an external life that is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable, flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened. Debbi Still A Skeptical Believer And Pragmatic Idealist Maru ;-) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
On May 5, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: OTOH, I'm split between the J and P, which makes me feel a little better, not desiring to be known as judgemental...even though in many ways, I am. Some are confused by the language of MBTI, and find one or the other terms for each of the four dimensions pejorative and the other laudatory. Neither is not intended to be either: no value judgment is made on either end of any of the spectra. For example, Judging does not mean judgmental. It merely refers to a preference for closure as opposed to the preference for open-ended-ness among perceptives. And, of course, each is a spectrum: I doubt that anybody is all extroverted or all introverted (although I am pretty well slammed against the rails on the extroverted side). It's not at all uncommon to find oneself in the middle on one of the axes: I'm about halfway between thinking and feeling -- given some conversations I've had on that subject lately, I'd lay odds that I naturally gravitate towards the feeling end of the scale, but that socialization has skewed me towards thinking. Katherine Benziger (http://www.benziger.org/), whose Benziger Thinking Styles Assessment (BTSA) is not so very different from MTBI, writes about a condition she calls Falsification of Type that leads, she says, to much grief. I would guess that if I'm right about my natural predilection towards feeling vs. socialization towards thinking is valid, I probably exhibit her Falsification of Type. (Of course I would guess is a very iNtuitive thing to say, isn't it?) Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
Dave Land wrote: And, of course, each is a spectrum: Because they are spectra there are a number of encoding schemes out there to try to disambiguate those that move or are near the lines, and some psychologists will tell you the categorizations are meaningless without the full test and knowledge specific choices within it. (...and others will tell you taking the test is only every valid once or not at all or only on full moons.) For instance, I sometimes find it useful to use xNTP, because I'm pretty firm as far as the NTP side of the spectrum in every test I've taken and generally in my judgment of the system itself says. The I/E I tend to flip-flop depending on several factors. Another choice would be to use something like I?NTP, as the I is often more dominant, but again, subject to change. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in the end I'll get the grrrl! --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
On May 5, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Max Battcher wrote: Dave Land wrote: And, of course, each is a spectrum: Because they are spectra there are a number of encoding schemes out there to try to disambiguate those that move or are near the lines, and some psychologists will tell you the categorizations are meaningless without the full test and knowledge specific choices within it. (...and others will tell you taking the test is only every valid once or not at all or only on full moons.) For instance, I sometimes find it useful to use xNTP, because I'm pretty firm as far as the NTP side of the spectrum in every test I've taken and generally in my judgment of the system itself says. The I/E I tend to flip-flop depending on several factors. Another choice would be to use something like I?NTP, as the I is often more dominant, but again, subject to change. Sure. I've taken to writing (on those rare occasions that it needs to be written -- I'm not a type-freak) ENfP, because I am only weakly on the F end of that particular spectrum. As the Fool points out in his inimitable style, this stuff is not mathematics. If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of science. Human behavior and the motivations behind it are notoriously difficult to quantify, frustrating most attempts to do so. Dave Romans 7:15-15 Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
