[SpamCop-Social] Re: spamcop.antisocial?

[Miss Betsy]

"Guy Macon" <guymacon+spamcop-newsgroups02> wrote in message
news:b294g5$t30$2
>
>
> Charles wrote:
>
> >Out of curiousity, what is your Myers-Briggs personality type?
> >You can take a test at:
> ><http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp>
>
>
>
> The test calls me an INTJ, but I reject Myers-
> Briggs for the following reason:
>
> "[Jung's] typology seems to imply that science is
> just a point of view and that using intuition is
> just as valid a way of seeing and understanding
> the world and ourselves, as careful observation
> under controlled conditions. Never mind that that
> is the only way to systematically minimize
> self-deception and identifying causes where there
> are none. Intuition may be a valid way of perceiving,
> but it is not a valid way of understanding the
> natural world."
> Source: http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

IMHO, that is not a valid reason for rejecting the usefulness of the Myers
Briggs Test.  IIUC, intuitive people simply *prefer* to view things
intuitively, but if necessary, can use their sensing abilities.  And the
same goes for all the other attributes - because I am "introverted" does not
mean that I can not speak in public, for instance.  Perhaps you had a
difficult time understanding the preciseness of the difference between
bounces and replies because you were not using your sensing abilities to
"carefully observe" the facts.  Often, I believe, intuitive people are not
good spellers.  That doesn't mean all intuitive people are not.  The
observation that some people view the world intuitively is a valid scientifc
observation.

> The same page goes on to discuss the online test:
>
> "[Myers-Briggs] is not supposed to be used to spew
> out personality profiles and pigeonhole people, but
> the temptation to do so seems irresistible. ...
> providing personality tests and profiles has become
> a kind of entertainment on the Internet. Reading
> these profiles is like reading something from Omar
> the astrologer or Madame Sophie the psychic
> biorhythmist. ...  The experience is very reminiscent
> of James Randi's experiment with biorhythms and
> Forer's cold reading of strangers.
> Source: http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

It is true that online tests and other tests in magazines and books are not
very scientific and are closer to parlor games than true descriptions.  My
mother had a parlor game called "I've Got Your Number" (published in the
1930's) that was definitely "for fun" but was probably based on the Jungian
model.  It was a lot of fun to do.  However, IMHO, they are closer to the
"truth" than say, astrology.  The value of knowing your Myers-Briggs type as
well as understanding how different types interact is that you can
understand where people are coming from.   It is not a dangerous kind of pop
science and can give a general understanding of the differences in people.

However, I disagree with Charles about your problems with the news group.
When I first came to the ng, I was called a troll also, for IMHO, the same
reason you were.  I had an idea and no one was giving me any "good" reasons
why it wasn't a good idea.  Like you, I wasn't particularly advocating it;
all I wanted to know was why they didn't and wasn't satisfied with any of
the answers.

Being naturally a feeling person and therefore having had to learn how to
deal with my feelings in situations such as that, I didn't let it bother me
or tried to fix it (the thinking man's approach to problems and that's a
male/female trait and I don't know if that has anything to do with Myers
Briggs).   Anyway, you are right that there are different groups of people
with different foci, but there are overlaps also.  And IMHIO it doesn't
matter.  If you want me to "think" about it scientifically, you will have to
challenge me, ;)

Miss Betsy