|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? (2/5/2015 11:36:04 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bhruic
quote:
ORIGINAL: SweetnStormySub
But in crumpet's airplane scenario, I identified strongly with the strong J. I honestly don't know how that fits into the equation.
Don't worry yourself about it. You don't know how it fits in, because it doesn't. Attempts to categorize humanity in to a handful of psychological types with predictable behavior always spectacularly fail.
If you doubt it, just imagine what society would do with that information if that kind of psychological profiling was accurate and reliable... then look around and notice that society isn't doing any of that.
Your weatherman is better at predicting the weather 6 weeks from now, than tests like Briggs Myers is at predicting human behavior.
That is pretty much what some of us have been telling crumpets all along.
Trying to pigeon-hole personalities into human behavious will always be a spectacular fail.
Even with his "modified" diagram - it just doesn't fit.
He asks: 'Are these people more likely to be switchy?" and points to a particular group of 'defined' people.
The answer is: undefinable. Because an ordered and organized person can be just as likely to be 'switchy' as a spontaneous one.
And that's the crux of it.... whether someone is switchy or not has no bearing or correlation on if they are an ordered person or a random scatter-brain.
The two items are not linked in any way at all.
It's just as random as concocting a test to see if taller people are more likely to be bald than shorter ones.
If you then massage and pigeon-hole the data to fit the concocted theory, then the whole thing is just nothing more than preposterous musings and has no scientific value whatsoever and certainly no useful meaning.
The same can be said with the Briggs-Myers theory - it is based on Jungs flawed (untested) hypothesis which has been highly criticized and scoffed at for being nothing more than introspection and anecdotal.
For a theory/hypothesis to hold true, it must fit all the data and be able to predict the results.
The Briggs-Myers test does nothing of the sort.
Just like any other random methodology, sometimes it works, other times it is wildly inaccurate.
The problem is, crumpets has taken every exception proffered and retro-fitted the data to fit the model.
That's not how proper scientific study is conducted.
The model needs to be able to take the raw data and predict the results, reliably and repeatedly.
This is why the whole BM theory is considered to be nothing more than subjective opinion at best.
Yet crumpets is wielding it like a break-through in modern psychology when in fact it's just phoney opinion.
|
|
|
|
