You misstated my argument then pronounced the misstatement flawed. That is the definition of a straw man.
Granted, I did have to fill in some of the blanks for you when I paraphrased your argument, and maybe I did not fill them in the way you had in mind. But I directly quoted your argument the second time around. And I allowed for the possibility that I did not understand your conclusion. My response was basically: "If you conclude _____, then you are right, but your conclusion does not prove anything of consequence. If instead you conclude _____, then your argument is invalid." I was actually referring to Harry Potter.
You didn't quote me, you made up a straw man to attack. Maybe you missed this, I repeated my actual argument which differed from your straw version: Some people believe the M&B test accurately portrays their personality. Some people believe their horoscope/cold reading/and similar supposed descriptions accurately portray their personality. Therefore just believing the test has validity is not a good measure of whether or not the test has validity. One needs to look for other evidence of validation. I went on to post the lack of evidence of validation found with a literature review.
Fair enough, then I will go with the "your conclusion is true but it proves nothing" interpretation. Believing something is true is never a good measure of whether it is true. As for the Forer effect, I described some easy ways to rule it out.
What is it you are ruling out? I think you are missing the point. Try again. "just believing the test has validity is not a good measure of whether or not the test has validity." And did you look at the literature review on the lack of validity for the M&B test? "One needs to look for other evidence of validation."
The Forer effect. I am thinking this might be the last time I repeat this: You are the one who brought up the Forer effect. At the time, I thought you were using it to make an argument that MBTI profiles are generic, nondescriptive sketches that rely on the Forer effect in order to appear specific and descriptive, just like the profile Forer originally used in his experiment. (My thought was: why else would you compare MBTI to horoscopes if not to make that point?) In response, I said that was a fallacious argument and I described some ways to disprove the conclusion. But you say that is not where you were going with your mention of the Forer effect. I honestly cannot figure out where you were going with it. I think we agree on the following: MBTI profiles do not rely on the Forer effect to fool the reader, but that alone does not prove that MBTI is a scientifically legitimate theory. And as I have already said several times, I am not interested in providing "other evidence of validation". Not interested in persuading you that it MBTI is scientific at all. Just interested in disproving the argument I thought you were making.
What does this even mean, "does the test have validity?" You answer a couple of questions, read the test's conclusions, and then decide for yourself how accurate the description is. There's absolutely nothing academic about this test, and no one was claiming otherwise.
Acknowledging first that the OP was clarified to suggest the M&B test was merely "fun" and not an actual measure of one's personality ... Claims were made. These are the claims of people believing the test provides insight into themselves when the test is providing no more insight than a horoscope reading.
Yes, that is correct. They are no more specific than a cold reading is. The evidence supports this conclusion. Re relying on the Forer effect, where or upon what evidence have you shown that the test does not rely on the Forer effect?
@GingerCoffee I am tempted to give up on discussing your Forer effect argument with you. I thought you were arguing one thing, so I responded, then you said I misrepresented your argument, so I responded to your clarified version of your argument, then you said I misrepresented that argument, so I admitted to misinterpreting your argument and I agreed with you on what I thought your real conclusion was, then you confirmed that I was right the second time. And you seem to be ignoring the response I gave that time: Also: To be fair, one of those claims was my prediction (that most of us are IN__), which turned out to be dead-on. In fact, IN__ is extremely overrepresented here. 17/26 (65%) of the types reported in this thread are IN__. According to myersbriggs.org, 11.3% of the general population is IN__. Not that this proves MBTI is scientific, just that you kind of hurt your own point by citing a correct prediction as an example of how MBTI is wrong. Make a similarly accurate prediction about our zodiac signs, and then I will be impressed. Also, some of the posts you quoted were simply the profiles themselves, not our own conclusions. And you are reading too much into our words when we say things like "it helped me understand myself a little more" or "it did predict my career and some habits of mine." It is not as if we are diagnosing ourselves with mental illnesses or claiming that the profiles are absolute truth. Just that the way the profiles distinguish between personality traits and fit them together into distinct big pictures got us to think about ourselves in a different way. You keep insisting on science. Do you argue that science is the only way for us to learn about ourselves? Is it impossible for us to learn about ourselves through unscientific methods like self-reflecting with friends or reading fiction about characters we identify with?
This is assuming science is a little box instead of merely a part of the larger philosophical field of Epistemology. (Oh, and anyone who doesn't think science is only a subsection of philosophy is an ...).
By "science", I am referring to whatever GingerCoffee means by "the scientific process" when she says "the scientific process is the most successful method of understanding the Universe and alternatives are best left to fiction novels." I am trying to figure out if she is equivocating "thinking about ourselves from a different perspective and learning a bit about ourselves" with "understanding the Universe". Wish me luck!
@GingerCoffee Huh? What's that? I had never claimed it provides insight on myself. I just posted what the results said nothing else. Ya should read before making those claims, i was one of the first that said this is for mere fun. Also I do know the forer effect pretty well
Ha, good luck - I wonder how both sides would feel about the quote from John Keats' letters to the effect that misery schools an intelligence, and makes it a soul.
Famous ENTPs: Socrates, Da Vinci (I wonder how can they tell), Barack Obama Mao Zedong Rowan Atkinson and a bunch of other cool people.
ENTJ Personality (“The Commander”) "ENTJs are natural-born leaders. People with this personality type embody the gifts of charisma and confidence, and project authority in a way that draws crowds together behind a common goal." and Fire Horse: 1966 "The Fire Horse is destined to lead an exciting and eventful life and make their mark in their chosen profession. They have a forceful personality and their intelligence will bring them support of many people." both are accurate
I use MB for my staff I tell them if they do not agree with their personality type do it again and answer what their mother would say about them and to know that people will not see the answers they picked but only the results, the second time they do the test becomes spot on. Carl Jung did a lot of study in astrology, I have my own theory on how where and when we are born makes us different.
Famous INFJ's: Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Mel Gibson... Wait, what? MEL GIBSON? Oh I think I know at which end of that spectrum I land. I always thought there was an uncanny connection between me and Gibson. If I had made a Jesus movie, it would've also been a splatter. I also yell "freedom" every Friday when I leave work.
