4 ms·

That's not how science works. The burden is not on me to prove MBTI does not have external validity, the burden is on the MBTI to prove it does have it. You hav

That's not how science works. The burden is not on me to prove MBTI does not have external validity, the burden is on the MBTI to prove it does have it. You have the chain of cause and effect backwards. If you say "the sky is green," it's not my job to prove to you it's not. It's your job to prove it is. You're the one making the claim. But here is a (more politely worded than I) paper on the MBTI's ineffectiveness for your perusal: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs&sei-redir=1 http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... - simply googling "mbti external validity" will also give you plenty of explanation. I also recommend looking at the many studies that review cites, since its whole purpose is amassing information on whether the MBTI is effective.

0xfffafaCrash 10y ago
I'm a scientist, so I kind of know how science works. There's a difference between saying the extent of something's effectiveness hasn't been established by existing research and saying that it is ineffective. I've read the publication you are linking to before and it is saying the latter without the evidence necessary to back up the claim.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. You are lacking a basic understanding of how the research process works in social sciences. I don't want to be "credentials guy," but I have a degree in cognitive science and I've conducted human subjects research. What you are saying is simply wrong. That publication cites dozens of studies to back up its claims. Are you suggesting they are all invalid? If so, why?
  - rlucas 10y ago
    Did you read the same linked article I did? There were not cites to "dozens of studies;" rather, there were quotes from the Guardian and something called Skeptoid, plus a quoted but uncited "researcher." Combined with the fact that this is basically a listicle ("quoticle?") clickbait from a mid/low-brow popsci website, with no analysis or synthesis, and you can pretty much throw TFA away, regardless of your side of what's shaping up to be a religious war here on HN.
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      I'm talking about the study I just linked, not the article that started this discussion.
      - rlucas 10y ago
        Apologies, I missed that. The review paper you linked was indeed deeply researched and had a good synthesis of what it discussed. Decided not a pop Sci listicle :)

0xfffafaCrash 10y ago

I'm a scientist, so I kind of know how science works. There's a difference between saying the extent of something's effectiveness hasn't been established by existing research and saying that it is ineffective. I've read the publication you are linking to before and it is saying the latter without the evidence necessary to back up the claim.

ivraatiems 10y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. You are lacking a basic understanding of how the research process works in social sciences. I don't want to be "credentials guy," but I have a degree in cognitive science and I've conducted human subjects research. What you are saying is simply wrong. That publication cites dozens of studies to back up its claims. Are you suggesting they are all invalid? If so, why?
- rlucas 10y ago
  Did you read the same linked article I did? There were not cites to "dozens of studies;" rather, there were quotes from the Guardian and something called Skeptoid, plus a quoted but uncited "researcher." Combined with the fact that this is basically a listicle ("quoticle?") clickbait from a mid/low-brow popsci website, with no analysis or synthesis, and you can pretty much throw TFA away, regardless of your side of what's shaping up to be a religious war here on HN.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    I'm talking about the study I just linked, not the article that started this discussion.
    - rlucas 10y ago
      Apologies, I missed that. The review paper you linked was indeed deeply researched and had a good synthesis of what it discussed. Decided not a pop Sci listicle :)