Writers aren't fun. That's one lesson WF will teach ya, writers are the least fun people on the planet.
I agree entirely. If someone is passed up for a job because of someone's belief, then that would be considered harm, wouldn't it? But if I decide that I want to believe in horoscopes, or this test, or God, or Big Foot, why do you feel it's your job to convince me otherwise? My opinions don't harm you. They don't harm others. I'm still an active, contributing member of society. So it seems rather unproductive to try to turn me against my beliefs just because they don't align with yours. Do you not agree?
That's right. Each and everyone of us here who actually writes has a flexible ruler sitting at the waist.
Here's the problem: My goal is not to convince anyone of anything. That's the mistake you are making, thinking it's personal. My goal is to teach critical thinking by example. In the case of this test, when I see people saying things like, it matches my personality, or @daemon insisting his small self selected sample represents convincing evidence that the tests correctly predicts people on the forum are introspective intuitives, I see a deficit of critical thinking that I might be able to address. What are any of us doing here? Socializing with like minded writers, and learning, getting and giving feedback. That's what I'm doing when I explain how this test misleads, why evidence supported research and claims are infinitely more likely to be valid. It causes friction because people take comfort in their uncritically thought out beliefs and many don't want anyone to challenge their world. If a person has a legitimate argument supporting the validity of this test, it would be a win win for me. If I'm wrong, I'm not threatened or offended, rather, being wrong means one learns something new. If I'm right, I reinforce my own critical thinking skills by looking for supporting evidence and refining how I describe that evidence.
What do you mean by validity ? Are you saying it's impossible to determine whether the results of this test accurately describe you, or to what extent? This is a pretty superficial test. You answer some obvious questions and in return receive some obvious descriptions. No one could possibly argue that this test says anything about the human brain or even psychology in general. As an example, I can see that Bob is fat. I don't know why he's fat or how fat or exactly what that entails for his health or his psychology or his interactions, but I can observe something noticeable about Bob. All it does is regurgitate your own answers back to you after packaging them in pretty explanations. It's fun . It's not hard to determine whether someone displays introverted or extroverted behavior. How many parties have you been to this last month? In the last week, how many conversations spanning longer than five minutes have you had? Do people often invite you places? And I'm asking these questions using a lie detector because employers have way too much power these days, and when that poor interviewee comes out looking like an introvert, I'm not going to hire him because I want team players (unless it's coding then I want him). I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here, Ginger? Everyone knows you believe in the "scientific method" but this is psychology we're talking about here.
I think that's best answered in the other thread, @123456789. I'll put it in the queue behind the posts of @daemon I'm drafting a reply to.
The tale of two psychologies. There's Borders self-help psychology and academic journal psychology. The latter doesn't state anything without statistics. You know stats, don't you?? I thought you guys were related??
So some say, now. It wasn't presented as just 'fun' in the OP. Which is fine, it's the limitations of language and it's been clarified. On the other hand, at least one person in this thread continues to insist it has validity, and in past threads here on the same subject, even our fearless leader, @Daniel, was convinced the test had validity. I don't know if he still maintains that position. Trade the word, horoscope, for, Briggs & Meyers Personality test, and see if the posts don't seem a bit too convinced of the validity of horoscopes. I think most people in the forum recognize horoscopes are not really valid. But in this thread it is being argued that the B&M test is valid, unlike a horoscope. The evidence suggests the two are pretty similar in terms of validity, with perhaps people recognizing they are introverts or extroverts being a bit more reliable than thinking if you are a Sagittarius it means something.
INTP: head constantly in the clouds in the least people-oriented way possible. Warning label: "Probably not paying attention to you"
What do you mean by valid? If I "tell" the test that I don't like to go to parties, hate talking to people, and feel drained whenever I socialize, and the test calls me introverted, how is that invalid? These personaly "types" are clearly constructs. Is that what you mean?
The difference is that MB asks for details about your personality and then summarizes those details, while horoscopes ask you for your birthday and invents details about your personality.
No. Just... no. I made a prediction, half in jest, that most people who posted their types here would be IN__. The reason I gave, half in jest, was that this is a writers' forum. It was not a scientific claim by any stretch of the imagination. I just had a feeling it would be true. And I also realized that internet personality tests are self-selecting, which made my prediction likelier to be true. I just neglected to mention that detail, y'know, my post being half in jest and all. You quoted that prediction along with several others that you gave as examples of MBTI doing harm to society by misleading people. I pointed out, half in jest, that your rhetoric was ineffective. To make a convincing point that MBTI is useless, you should cite incorrect predictions rather than correct predictions. Just a tip for beginners on how to persuade people. But evidently my point was missed. The post I am quoting is yet another example of what several people and I keep telling you: that you are reading too much into what we say about MBTI.
One positive that I think has come from the popularity of the MBTI has been the new understanding of introversion/extroversion. In an extroverted society, I think introverts were often thought to have something missing, rather than just being different. I remember it as a lightbulb moment when I read the idea about Extroverts getting energy from people and being drained by solitude and Introverts being the other way around. It really helped me understand and manage my own responses (eg. instead of resisting the urge to go do something on my own when at weekend-long gatherings, I embraced a few hours of solitude as a way to enjoy the event more, etc.). Now, this distinction wasn't invented by Myers-Briggs, but the test has certainly done a lot to popularize the idea, and it was an MBTI test that first exposed me to it. So, yeah, the MBTI has done a lot to help me understand myself and arrange my life. Not the full package, but at least one of the component parts.
ENFJ-T. Apparently I have an extraverted mind, an intuitive energy, a nature closely associated with feelings, judgemental tactics, and a turbulent identy. Can anyone relate to that? (I'm somewhat confused on what it means )
@GingerCoffee I'm getting incredibly annoyed that you keep saying this post wasn't presented as just "fun" in the OP. 1) It's been in the Entertainment section since day 1. 2) The OP has the word "fun" in it. Full sentence: "I thought it'd be fun to share with you!" So I'm having an incredibly hard time understanding how you misinterpreted this little piece of enjoyment as an opportunity to debate it's validity as a scientific tool.
I'm not taking it personally. There's no reason for me to. Some people just love to argue and will come up with any excuse to do so. Blaming me for my "misdirection" is just one of those tactics.
ENFP-T "The Campaigner" The variant 'T' is for turbulent... In ways, I'm much too intense, and I ought to calm down/go with the flow. "The ENFP personality is a true free spirit." <----That's accurate! I'm intense about relationships, for sure. I'm very all or nothing. I hate being put in a box, controlled, even in my own head, so much so that I have trouble writing down story ideas, to focus on 'the moment' in storytelling. My mind is usually set on the big picture. I feel that to write a story, I need to forget everything about the whole when I'm writing and focus on the moment and let the story unfold on its own. Does anyone work like this? ie. forget the big picture and let it flow These tests are fun, and I find useful as well. A long time ago, in college, I took this test and registered differently. I admit that I've changed over the years.
