Another MBTI "debunking" - Page 4

Another MBTI "debunking"

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 94
Thank Tree84Thanks

This is a discussion on Another MBTI "debunking" within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; The issue may be with the threshold you put on it. How you define whether it's accurate or not? You ...

  1. #31

    The issue may be with the threshold you put on it. How you define whether it's accurate or not?

    You could have a hypothetical typology that randomly assigns people to X and Y type (two of them) and still get at least 50%. If you describe the types vaguely, you can get it to even 90% of people reporting to be accurately typed.

    Some people are satisfied with their horoscopes. Don't forget that.

    I'd never consider it scientific and I wouldn't like psychologist examining me to use this thing. Nah, it's far from good enough for such use. Too much variety within types and too much uncertainty between them.

    The goal is the key here. For ordinary people for fun or casual use it can be good enough. Certainly better than horoscopes because it takes some meaningful input to throw output based on it.
    UltimaRatio thanked this post.

  2. #32

    It really irks me when people play the "uneducated professional" card. I've seen countless examples of highly intelligent, uneducated people proving to be more knowledgeable and concise than educated professionals, myself being one of those intelligent, uneducated people.

  3. #33

    Why oh why must people always play the astrology card when discussing this matter. Astrology being a science thousands of years old. Somehow scientifically minded people conveniently ignore that Isaac Newton himself was an avid astrologer. Once, when his friend Edmund Halle was talking trash about astrology, he snapped something along the lines of, "I beg your pardon, I have studied the matter and you have not." So, for all of you who have not actually studied astrology, STFU.

    Astrology totally satisfies these requirements:

    Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

    Scientific methodology includes the following:

    Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
    Evidence
    Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
    Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
    Repetition
    Critical analysis
    Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
    From sciencecouncil.org

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34

    Quote Originally Posted by AnneM View Post
    Why oh why must people always play the astrology card when discussing this matter. Astrology being a science thousands of years old. Somehow scientifically minded people conveniently ignore that Isaac Newton himself was an avid astrologer. Once, when his friend Edmund Halle was talking trash about astrology, he snapped something along the lines of, "I beg your pardon, I have studied the matter and you have not." So, for all of you who have not actually studied astrology, STFU.

    Astrology totally satisfies these requirements:



    From sciencecouncil.org
    studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
    BigApplePi and AromaNoodles thanked this post.

  6. #35

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
    What studies? How would you even conduct that study?

    I suppose I do not possess a very scientific spirit, to the extent that that requires an objective stance. But I hold to the view that we are not even in a position as human beings to properly delineate what is subjective vs what is objective.

    For me, the only way to confirm or debunk astrology is to go deep into it for yourself. Either be as informed and professional as you can, or pay up and have a professional do it for you. At that point, you would be in a position to credit or discredit it, and not one moment before.

    Astrology is both universal and highly personal. If you don't explore the highly personal aspect of it, you will never know of its validity.
    Last edited by AnneM; 10-02-2019 at 11:46 AM.

  7. #36

    Quote Originally Posted by AnneM View Post
    What studies? How would you even conduct that study?
    then why are you saying it's scientific?
    also, like this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...046?via%3Dihub
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...676?src=recsys
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...995?src=recsys
    AnneM thanked this post.

  8. #37

    These studies strike me as being highly superficial. Anyone who knows anything about astrology knows that a natal chart is a complicated web, with each factor (and there are hundreds) influencing every other factor. You can't take just the sun sign, or even the combination of the sun/ascendant/moon sign, and use the perceived lack of correlation with the personality as a means to debunk astrology as a whole.

    It sure seems that the concept of intuition has been taken completely out of the "what is and isn't scientific" argument. Which is ironic, considering all great scientific discoveries had their beginnings in intuition.

    Astrology is a highly intuitive science. Maybe that's where our difference of opinion lies. Plenty of people seem to think that if something is intuitive, it is invalid.

    But, then again, theoretical physics is giving the hard sciences a run for their money, isn't it....

  9. #38

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
    What doesn't work? Is it not the case that if something has value, it works for that value? Want to go scientific on that?

    I'd say astrology, fortune cookies and the Book of XXX all have value. (I forget what XXX is.) For example when I get some fortune cookies, I throw them on he pile of rubber bands just below the displays on my desk. Here. I'll pull out and quote some:

    1. Your ability to find the silly in the serious will take you far.
    2. If you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything.
    3. Ideas you may believe are absurd ultimately lead to success!
    4. While times may seem difficult, your future forecasts a quick turnaround.

    Anything "scientific here? Sure. The first step in the scientific method is observation. Observe those ideas and pick out a tentative hypothesis. Great stuff. I say forget the accuracy of the above. I'm a specialist in spotting accuracy and accuracy is very rare.

    @AnneM. You show promise of being a good debater.
    AnneM thanked this post.

  10. #39

    @BigApplePi I'm not sure if I should thank you or take offense at the comparison to fortune cookies! This is how you keep me:



    That's MY job! That's what I'm supposed to do to other people! You give me a taste of my own medicine, for sure.

    Anyway....I think people would be extremely surprised at the amount of mathematical calculation that is involved in astrology. Just wanted to throw that in there.
    BigApplePi thanked this post.

  11. #40

    Quote Originally Posted by AnneM View Post
    @BigApplePi I'm not sure if I should thank you or take offense at the comparison to fortune cookies! This is how you keep me:



    That's MY job! That's what I'm supposed to do to other people! You give me a taste of my own medicine, for sure.

    Anyway....I think people would be extremely surprised at the amount of mathematical calculation that is involved in astrology. Just wanted to throw that in there.
    By all means take offense. (Fortunately there is no button for that as many would take it the wrong way.) When offense is taken, I get to see something I hadn't seen before. If you agree with me, it reinforces what I said but I learn nothing new.
    AnneM thanked this post.


     
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Deep ocean" vs. "Outer space" and MBTI types
    By starvinginsomedeepmystery in forum Member Polls
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-15-2018, 03:17 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-21-2017, 06:28 AM
  3. [INFP] "childlike" .vs. "childish" , in this so-called "mature, adult" REAL-world..!
    By niki in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 08-26-2016, 08:07 PM
  4. Is it possible to be a socionics "E" and a MBTI/jungian "I"?
    By dulcinea in forum What's my Socionics type?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 02:29 PM
  5. Debunking the Myth, the contradiction in "Artistic INTPs".
    By Kohtumine in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 10-05-2012, 06:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0