Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 352 posts

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#341

Post by anotherfish »

ncmncm wrote: post #340
anotherfish wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusations of being smug are usually made by people who chose a team and you've encroached or offended that team somehow. There's often an aspect of admonishment in using that word as well. As for my part it wasn't based on arrogance as you'd likely expect. It was simply the result of a bet. I won that bet since no one noticed .

Obviously no one would ever notice. Horoscopes are the archetypal example of a thing that doesn't matter. "Filler" is the newpaper term, also said of the stories laid out between the ads (which weren't). Nowadays we say "content". Winning didn't mean you were any smarter than average; the other guy was an idiot. But despite horoscopes being maximally random before they got to you, to which you therefore added exactly…

Obviously? I don't think this is true. People pay money for horoscopes and similar so there are people out there who take it seriously. I don't.

I didn't say anyone was an idiot. That's from you. Likely because you're offended. More than you probably should be. But thats your choice. If you think horoscopes are great then keep using them.

I swapped the horoscopes around for a bet. No one noticed. Its ancient history. I won the bet. Already been paid. Already spent it.

You can't change anything here. Now you're just online trolling.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#342

Post by 0x737368 »

Bakary wrote: post #337
0x737368 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I don't follow you here. >If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse. Peterson DOES encour…

To avoid confusion around semantics, I'll try to draw up a more stripped down version of the argument. Cultural shifts linked to specific left-wing ideas underway in various parts of society → concern based on the idea of the foundations of society being weakened or changed too quickly as a result → public figure comments against the former shift in an accessible and engaging way → fanbase forms around public figure,…

Thank you, I understand your point of view now. I would need to get a bigger grip on the underlying issues to fully agree or disagree with it(your previously mentioned reading list), but your argument seems reasonable and plausible to me.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#343

Post by ncmncm »

anotherfish wrote: post #341
ncmncm wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously no one would ever notice. Horoscopes are the archetypal example of a thing that doesn't matter. "Filler" is the newpaper term, also said of the stories laid out between the ads (which weren't). Nowadays we say "content". Winning didn't mean you were any smarter than average; the other guy was an idiot. But despite horoscopes being maximally random before they got to you, to which you therefore added exactly…

Obviously? I don't think this is true. People pay money for horoscopes and similar so there are people out there who take it seriously. I don't. I didn't say anyone was an idiot. That's from you. Likely because you're offended. More than you probably should be. But thats your choice. If you think horoscopes are great then keep using them. I swapped the horoscopes around for a bet. No one noticed. Its ancient history.…

If you imagine me offended, you are wrong a third time. Or fifth, I might have lost count.

It should worry you to be wrong so frequently about other people. But I prognosticate that nothing will change.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#344

Post by runarberg »

nicoburns wrote: post #339
runarberg wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It (attempts to) measure personality type. i.e. the underlying baseline from which your personality starts. Which proof do you have that such a thing exists? Underlying personality traits sounds to me like a theory of epicycles when a simpler more plausible theory exists.

I don't have proof. I'm merely correcting the parent on what the theory claims . That said, the only thing that "underlying baseline from which your personality starts" really claims is that there is a "nature" (as opposed to nurture) component to people's personalities. While I'm sure not everyone would agree with that, it's not exactly implausible. Indeed it must surely seem likely to anyone who has observed how wi…

As far as my understanding goes the nature vs. nurture debate in psychology is really old school. Like it was fairly concluded before The Bell Curve came out in the mid nineties and argued in favor of nature.

As I understand it that arguing nature vs. nurture usually stems from badly defined concepts often defined in terms of how they are measured (e. Operationally defined). What happens then is that you get a bunch of correlation between various concepts just because one concept pollutes into another, not because of how we are geared. Nature vs. nurture is also an awfully dualistic approach and completely misses (or ignores) interaction effects.

To tie this into this thread. GP is not saying that nurture defines personality as opposed to nature. They are simply claiming that it is malleable. How malleable, under which circumstances, malleable to what, which aspects, etc. are all still open questions which may be ascribed to ones genes (and maybe not; hence the open question). This is the interaction effect which the dualistic nature vs. nurture debate completely misses.

I would actually go further then GP and say that the question is flawed. Personality is not a useful psychological concept and does not describe behavior any better then, say, political leaning, religion, or how many languages you speak. That is to say, measuring personality and categorizing people based on personality traits brings us no closer in understanding human behavior. That is to say, measuring personalities and ascribing traits is not only harmful—like GP says—but also bad psychology.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#345

Post by runarberg »

gudNess01 wrote: post #242
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing in the field of psychology with better support than IQ. This is not true. See Wikipedia[0][1][2]. IQ actually holds little support, compared with (e.g.) bilateral sound recognition, or somatotopic arrangement on the postcentral gyrus. (Among psychologists, that is; IQ probably has more support amongst the general population, because it's pop-pseudoscience.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor…

To be fair the person you replied to wrote it’s the best accepted option in psychology. Not that it’s actually useful. Who really cares if psychology goes the way of the dodo? If IQ is all the field has produced that’s of value and we’ve been doing grand engineering and science things since before it was around (grand in then contemporary context perhaps) what’s the field really getting us? Does it build infrastructu…

> Does it build infrastructure, feed people, and heal wounds?

The answer to all these is yes.

> Build infrastructure

Maybe not build but affects design. Civil engineers often use models from cognitive psychologists during the planing phase. E.g. how tall and how luminescent should the traffic lights be to optimize energy savings without risking safety? Or close to a dense population center can we build an airport before the sound pollution starts posing public health risks? Or even: “Is it wise to build water pipes with lead?’

> Feed people

To the same extent that quantum mechanics feeds people, by granting jobs and building models, maybe optimize some aspects of food distribution. A psychologist certainly can affect what food people choose. Food companies have a bunch of psychologists working in their marketing. And governments might hire psychologists to help persuade people to eat healthier food.

> heal wounds

This one is easy. Depression is a deadly disease. Psychotherapy is our best way to treat mild to moderate depression. And even sever depression is best treated with drugs and psychotherapy. Psychologists are saving lives every day. You asked about feeding people above, many people have been cured of anorexia because of psychologists. Behavior therapy is the best way we know of to treat many phobias and obsessive compulsive behavior. PTSD can develop into deadly depression if left untreated. This is also prevented with psychotherapy.

Note that none of the above examples have anything to do with IQ. If IQ goes away, psychologists will still continue their work in improving and saving peoples lives with better infrastructure, better public health policies, and by literally healing (or at least treating) peoples wounds.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#346

Post by LammyL »

souprock wrote: post #304
pseudalopex wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Myers Briggs tests have profiles of each type usually. Big 5 tests don't.

So, to fix the Big 5 tests: 1. Write up 32 profile descriptions, each with an inoffensive name. 2. Come up with less-offensive names for the Big 5 traits. You can't politely call somebody neurotic, even if it is true. Most people wouldn't admit to being neurotic. It's not nice to ask about that. 3. Somehow, make sure the old names like "neurotic" are dead and buried.

16personalities.com does this with the terms Assertive and Turbulent to represent the ends of the neuroticism spectrum.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#347

Post by anotherfish »

ncmncm wrote: post #343
anotherfish wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously? I don't think this is true. People pay money for horoscopes and similar so there are people out there who take it seriously. I don't. I didn't say anyone was an idiot. That's from you. Likely because you're offended. More than you probably should be. But thats your choice. If you think horoscopes are great then keep using them. I swapped the horoscopes around for a bet. No one noticed. Its ancient history.…

If you imagine me offended, you are wrong a third time. Or fifth, I might have lost count. It should worry you to be wrong so frequently about other people. But I prognosticate that nothing will change.

... and again with the trolling.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#348

Post by nicoburns »

runarberg wrote: post #344
nicoburns wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have proof. I'm merely correcting the parent on what the theory claims . That said, the only thing that "underlying baseline from which your personality starts" really claims is that there is a "nature" (as opposed to nurture) component to people's personalities. While I'm sure not everyone would agree with that, it's not exactly implausible. Indeed it must surely seem likely to anyone who has observed how wi…

As far as my understanding goes the nature vs. nurture debate in psychology is really old school. Like it was fairly concluded before The Bell Curve came out in the mid nineties and argued in favor of nature. As I understand it that arguing nature vs. nurture usually stems from badly defined concepts often defined in terms of how they are measured (e. Operationally defined ). What happens then is that you get a bunch…

esperent's comment that I originally replied to not only claims that personality is malleable (I completely agree), but that MBTI theory claims that is not. That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the theory is claiming.

> How malleable, under which circumstances, malleable to what, which aspects, etc. are all still open questions

Indeed. And the MBTI theory makes a specific and very interesting claim about this open question: that what is malleable, under which circumstances, etc varies between people. And furthermore, that there is an extent to which that variation follows certain set patterns (possibly as a strong statistical average with exceptions rather than a sure thing), such that we can classify people by which pattern(s) of malleability they follow.

This doesn't mean that all malleability is subject to these patterns. There can still be aspects that are common to all people, and aspects that are completely individual. But the claim is that there also some aspects that apply to group of peoples.

Of course, such a claim needs to be substantiated and the current evidence is mostly from clinical observation rather than scientific experimentation. But whether it is true or not there is good reason to believe that the lack of scientific evidence stems from a lack of ability to measure accurately because (as you say) mainstream psychology has very little to say on this topic at the moment and exactly how this aspect of the mind works is still considered an open question.

> That is to say, measuring personality and categorizing people based on personality traits brings us no closer in understanding human behavior. That is to say, measuring personalities and ascribing traits is not only harmful—like GP says—but also bad psychology.

I should note that the MBTI does NOT measure external traits. It (attempts to) measure an actual functional mechanism in the mind/brain (which it postulates to exist).

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#349

Post by mancerayder »

Bodell wrote: post #299
mancerayder wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most of this can be found on YouTube or his Wikipedia page. Not a Peterson acolyte, a Jungian, or even right wing for that matter, but I'm a political philosophy junkie so I have some familiarity with Peterson's claims, mostly from watching debates and listening to arguments. And I will say this, your random out of context quoting, and hiding behind "check his Wikipedia page and YouTube yourself" is the same sophist…

I do not believe I mentioned a single thing that you are talking about in your comment. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about in your comment. You seem to have quite the bone to pick with postmodernism, something I left completely left unaddressed about Peterson. I only implied that saying men will become fascists if they are feminized is ludicrous. Does "postmodernism" mean feminizing men? And I suggest t…

We're not going to debate the ins and outs of whether his views or crazy or correct, not least because I don't agree with many of them, but also because I'm not interested in playing devil's advocate.

I just think it's not fair to quote - anyone - out of context, referencing a Wikipedia collection of a few quotations, and finger that as proof of insane or bad or incorrect views. Your explanation of his views is about as long or longer than the quotes you're referring to. These are extremely nuanced, complex issues, and to summarize with outrageous highlights (feminizing men, which you've brought up) is sophistry.

Peterson can be completely wrong, a bad intellectual, whatever you want to call him, but the correct thing is to understand the ideas that you disagree with without relying on an authority (The New Yorker, among others, which were quoted a few times in your Wikipedia article references) before calling them out, because they're not being portrayed accurately.

Re: In Defense of Myers Briggs (2020)

#350

Post by ncmncm »

anotherfish wrote: post #347
ncmncm wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you imagine me offended, you are wrong a third time. Or fifth, I might have lost count. It should worry you to be wrong so frequently about other people. But I prognosticate that nothing will change.

... and again with the trolling.

QED
Post reply on HN