[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 6 KB, 256x283, myers-briggs-personality-types.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5049738 No.5049738 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/, how valid is the Meyers-Briggs system?

>> No.5049742

about as valid as my dick in your spleen

>> No.5049743

Ask yourself this question when questioning if it's valid.

>Question 1: Is it the work of sociologists or psychologists?

If you answer YES, then it is not valid.
If you answer NO, then there's a chance it could be valid.

>> No.5049748

Not very.

>> No.5049758

>>5049743

Your are probably a fag who thinks IQ tests are also valid too.

>> No.5049762

>>5049758
This post is awesome because it's true.

But yeah Meyers-Briggs isn't valid at all.

>> No.5049764

It is not considered valid in academic psychology.

>> No.5049770

>>5049762
>no true scotsman

>> No.5049782

>>5049758

IQ tests are only valid for what they were originally made to test. Even then, it probably isn't very valid at all.

Are you hurt that I called your fields of psychology and sociology irrelevant?

>> No.5049789

>>5049782

Nope, I don't study them. It's pure math for me. I'm just pointing out that you a probably a hypocrite.

>> No.5049792

Not very. Google it and read some papers. Poor prediction (=poor validity), fails factor tests, poor test-retest reliability.

Shit test.

IQ tests are great though, and five factor is pretty cool.

>> No.5049796

>>5049764

Psychology isn't valid, and has no authority to make claims on whether or not something is a science, because that would just be hypocritical.

>> No.5049804

it's about as valid as astrology

but the zodiac is more consistent in its results

>> No.5049809

>>5049796

>Dismisses the entirety of psychology
> psychology is pretty much how neuroscience got started

I'm not current psychological studies at the moment, but that was just something stupid to say if you know what science is.

>> No.5049813

>>5049809

*current in psychological studies*
can't even do syntax right. I'm tired. Goodnight /sci/

>> No.5049815

>>5049809

Despite it's roots, neurology is a real science.

Psychology isn't, it's more like arbitrary viewpoints and opinions.

>> No.5049823

Is a system that asks you to understand how you think valid? No, of course not. There's no way you could be either introspective of extrospective. There's no way you could either want to plan out or live in the moment. No fucking way, that's stupid!

Of course it's valid, you dumbfuck. Anybody who says it isn't thinks that a test is supposed to give you your type. IT ISN'T. Both Briggs and Jung both clearly stated that ONLY YOU CAN KNOW WHAT TYPE YOU ARE.

Christ, why is /sci/ so fucking stupid when it comes to Psychology?

>> No.5049825

>>5049815
You know, aside from all the reproduceable and quantifiable results. Aside from those, its absolute bullshit.

>> No.5049836

>>5049825
Not the anon you were talking to, but could you show me some of those theories, I'm curious.

>> No.5049856

>>5049809

I promise you the history of surgical procedures was the spur of neurobiology rather than the field of psychology.

>> No.5049866

>>5049836

Not that namefag, but behaviorism - more importantly conditioning.

>> No.5049870

>>5049836

I don't study psychology, but just to name a few

>memory reconstruction
> disassociation theory
>stress related activities and brain function

Here is a good website:http://www.businessinsider.com/100-things-you-should-know-about-people-2010-11?op=1

It also lists sources and experiments done after each fact

>> No.5049871
File: 43 KB, 560x420, tempd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5049871

>>5049836
Across cultures (and species), hyperbolic models consistently fit intertemporal choice behavior better than exponential models. Before you jump at my throat and call this economics, hyperbolic models violate one of von neumann's axioms of rational choice and have been relegated to psychology thusly. Point is, they still fit better. Attached graph shows LL of hyperbolic and exponential models on monkey choice data. McClure is the last name of a researcher who does a lot of work with this.

Check out prospect theory, Kahneman and Tversky 1980s That won a nobel prize in economics, but the two researchers are trained psychologists. They offered a quantitative framework for explaining risk aversion in human decision makers. This is also reproducible in other species (check out Laurie Santos' TED talk).

Drift diffusion models do wonderfully in explaining perceptual (and non perceptual) choices in many many tasks, including the famous random dot motion tasks. Check out Joshua Gold for more on this.

Its 1:00 AM so I'm extremely uninterested in scouring my endnote and google scholar to find purely behavioral papers that detail these phenomena. Because they're mathematical models that tend to predict the behavior extremely well (i.e., they're valid psychological theories), they see a lot of use in Neuroscience.

>> No.5049874

>>5049789

...and how did that pointing out go for you?

>> No.5050047

"I don't think psychology is a science, therefore my pseudoscience is valid"

Well, I'm convinced.