Introduce yourself here!
Spoirier: what do you say about the completely unscientific way that the "test" was developed? What about the application of the Forer effect to the MCTI? What about the lack of its use by actual psychologists? What about the fact that 50% of those who take it twice get a different result? Or the manner in which the test splits introverts and extroverts? These are all points that Dunning brings up. They don't strike me as trivial.
"the completely unscientific way that the "test" was developed?"
Is Newton's law of gravitation made invalid by Newton's primary interest for alchemy ?
The problem of who and how an idea was invented, is completely out of subject.
"the application of the Forer effect to the MCTI?"
Some stupid people may be sensitive to this effect, but do you think I must be stupid just because I find myself much better described by the INTP description than with any of the other descriptions of types ?
That someone noticed that he may find himself as well fit with the description of one type than of the opposite type, does not mean that everybody else must be the same and that therefore whoever disagrees must be very stupid and have just failed to wonder about whether another type may fit him as well.
Arouet, I notice that there is here nothing rational in your argumentation. Your only argument is to stick to the blind belief than anyone with a different opinion from you must be stupid so that the stupidest reply to defend your position must fit.
In case you did not guess, I must mention that I never believed in astrology.
As for the psychologists'opinion, sorry but until now I only formed a positive opinion about the scientificity level of hard sciences like maths and physics; I have a quick favorable guess for the rationality of a few other sciences such as biology, climatology and paleontology; but there are other fields as well that I consider to be (accidentally) non-scientific, or of low scientificity level, such as philosophy, psychiatry and psychanalysis.
Yes, why not consider psychanalysis to be "mainstream", even if it is pseudo-science ?
By the way, theology is mainstream too, since there many faculties dedicated to it. This does not make it a science.
I have an opinion somewhere in between for medecine and economics. You know, this "science" of economics that is taking so much time for getting rid of the Keynesian bullshit (after it had taken seriously the marxist bullshit some time before...)
So, the science of psychology ? Sorry, what is this ?
Okay, if you insist that psychology rejects MBTI, I'll have to deduce that psychology is pseudo-science.
Last edited by spoirier on Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'll have to disagree. There is quite a bit of rationality in his argument. If 50% of the people get a different result when they retake the test, that appears to me to show a lack of credibility in the test. If people get different results based on their "mood" or whatever it is, then perhaps we should be looking at studies that show how moods (or whatever) affect one's abilities and personalities rather than relying on a test that may be fun to take, but doesn't do much for anything else. I'm well aware that several large companies (GM perhaps the most famous) use the MB to pair teams, but what do the studies suggest as a result? Does GM actually benefit from it? Those are the arguments that should be considered before we discount or accept the MB as a valid examination.
As I already said, I don't blindly rely on this "test". I don't take it as a test but as a meaningful expression of what has always been for me, even before I heard about MBTI, a living evidence about myself and some of my main differences from others, so that I am totally unconcerned about the possibility that some other people would not fit there (fall in between for one or more parameters).
Moreover, this debate is completely ridiculous. I would have much more interesting things than this to discuss. I only mentioned my type for presenting myself. This way of avoiding all serious discussion on the world's problem by focusing the discussion on such a ridiculous misinterpretation of a little point of my presentation, is just desperating.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. In your welcome page, your very first paragraph was very explicit about the MB so, based on experience in this board, that usually means it is one of the primary focuses on posting to this forum. Plus, it was a new subject here so a few of us jumped on the "New topic" bandwagon. We can change the subject if you would like, however.
Soooo, what are your thoughts on 9/11, bigfoot, UFOs, orbs, and parapsychology?
Why do you ask what are my thoughts ?
I already said that I invited you to visit my many writings, and for this you can start by checking my other messages in this forum, and then following the links.
If you don't know how to find my other messages, I can help you: you can find them by clicking here.
Sorry I'm not interested in 9/11, bigfoot, UFOs, orbs, and I don't want to invest myself in the study of parapsychology, but I have other interests that I see as more important: to explain science, because it's such a pity to see people misunderstanding it...to explain the most important problems of the world, and the scientific solutions that can be found.
My writing projects will include writing a clean presentation of "just the facts" about the paradoxes of quantum physics, because it's such a pity to see these pseudo-discussions about the metaphysical meaning of these paradoxes without anybody having a clue of what it is about.
Indeed, this lack of understanding, and the resulting temptation found here to invent ideas of what it might mean far from any logical rigor, seems to give good reasons for skeptics to dismiss such claims of metaphysical implications as unserious.
Fair enough Spoirier, but I joined this forum as it is a discussion of criticisms of the paranormal (hence the name of the site) and that is what I'm more interested in discussing. Please continue to post as you see fit, but may not partake in some of the discussion.
Spoirier: I'm actually quite surprised at your dismissal of Brian Dunning's critiques of the Myers Briggs test. But I hear you that you don't wish to discuss it further and so will drop it.
I don't think there are many here who can get into the finer points of quantum physics. None of the current regs on this forum have a physics background AFAIK. I did download a course from itunes U on QM, but I suspect I will get lost fairly early on. I'll give it a shot to try and get some knowledge from it, but QM is tough going for the average person.
That's right Arouet. I'm far too busy and anything with the word "quantum" is probably not in my area of expertise. Now, if anyone wants to discuss the price of Apple stocks while Steve Jobs is out sick, or something similar, by all means fire up a conversation. But speaking for myself only, for the most part I think I'd rather stick with "spooky" ghost stories or the John Edward type subjects.
Precisely, I think I am really on-topic here.
Because the cause of pseudo-skepticism, what "skeptics" think about the defenders of the paranormal, and what makes them see the paranormal claims and this very site as scientifically unserious, is (among other things) the fact that there are a number of misunderstandings about science here, and some discrepancy between this site and the normal scientific standard (which should be expected as the title of this site contains a claim of scientificity). So, when I developed this issue in the other thread which I started, and which you seem to not have yet read or understood, I really think I stayed on topic.
Now about quantum physics, I'm not asking you to go and read existing courses at this moment, because I am aware of the difficulty. I just wanted to point out that it is a real issue and that I intend to work on making a clean presentation of the quantum paradoxes, that will make them easier to understand. Once it will be done, then it may be useful for you to read it.
Until then, I just tell you now: you should not complain against skeptics that they cannot take you seriously when they see you making such claims about quantum physics.
The problem is, I understand quite well skeptics in some sense, because physics has been so successful to explain many things, that it can be hard from some people to figure out that the mind cannot be explained in the same way. If there was not such an open door in the laws of physics, this process of mind-matter interaction that quantum physics allows, then indeed all paranormal phenomena would be impossible.
Also in this text I pointed out a mathematical argument that suggests the nature of the mind and why its behavior cannot be algorithmic (not even including a part of chance).
I think such a way of raising the level of understanding can contribute to raising the level of credibility too, which seemed to be the purpose of this site (ifever you really wish to become more credible and not just convince yourself of the stupidity of scientists who don't take you seriously).
Personally, I read and understood. Even agree with most of what you said. What I found a tad amusing was wondering just how many scientists you think visit this site?
Don't mix me up with Scepcop! I'm one of the skeptics here!
All right. Fair enough.
So I'd classify the different sides of participants in this forum, as forming a diamond:
So: I am pro-science (but not pro-institutions);
Skeptics (anti-paranormal) have a partially scientific attitude and partially irrational (sectarian) too (considering their irrational, crazily straw-man reactions towards MBTI)
Skepcop (pro-paranormal) also has a partially scientific (rational) attitude, and partially crackpot too.
Each of these two sides sees itself as the rational side and accuses the other of not being scientific, for reasons that are somehow justified.
Somehow these irrationalities are similar, somehow they are complementary, as each side has some dimensions of rationality and scientificity that the other doesn't.
And some contents in this site and forum, have nothing to do with the paranormal but are just anti-science.
Not a bad assessment, but rather than saying Skeptics (at least me) are "anti-paranormal," I'd prefer to be classified as "still looking for the paranormal" or something like that. I'm only anti paranormal when it comes to those who lie about their paranormal abilities (the Sylvia Brownes and the Jenna the Astrologers of the world). I certainly support further studies in the paranormal and hope that someday science can come to the conclusion that there are helpful and meaningful uses for paranormal abilities. I just take the stance that science has not yet found any solid evidence that isn't questionable.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests