4 ms·

They are not remotely comparable, Meyers Briggs is descriptive, Astrology is prescriptive and it's the prescriptive part that is nonsense. There is no connecti

They are not remotely comparable, Meyers Briggs is descriptive, Astrology is prescriptive and it's the prescriptive part that is nonsense. There is no connection to your personality and your birth date. Meyers Briggs is a classification system that groups similar personalities, it does not prescribe what your personality is or should be.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Astrology is prescriptive If you disregard the people who claim astrology is prescriptive, and pay attention to only those aspects of it that describe tendencies - all the most convincing astrology nuts I've met do this - it can be quite... warming.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Those tendencies are still linked to a birthdate which makes them prescriptive, you cannot ignore the prescriptive element of astrology without ignoring astrology entirely.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Myers-Briggs has a type label then assigns traits based on that label. It's not clear to me how that's different. Sure, you can choose your type by responding differently to the questions, or finding a "practitioner" who assigns a type you prefer, but the same applies to astrology: shop around until you hear what you want to here.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > Myers-Briggs has a type label then assigns traits based on that label. False. It's exactly the opposite, the label doesn't assign the traits, rather the traits create the label; if your traits change so does the label, it's nothing more than a description of who you are now according to your own answers to those traits questions. And it aids greatly in think about yourself and others and how people differ and exactly in what ways they can differ. > It's not clear to me how that's different. Then learn more.
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    Being linked to your birthday has absolutely nothing to do with being prescriptive. Perhaps horoscopes are only prescriptive, but astrology as a whole is much broader than that. I don't put faith in or know much about astrology, but I do know there are many different types and areas of astrology and not all of them have to do with telling you how to pick your lotto numbers tomorrow. A lot of people talk about signs and astrology in terms of being able to read people and determine personality traits of others.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      It has everything to do with it, and it doesn't matter how or what a lot of people talk about astrology in terms of, it's absolute horseshit regardless of how they try and justify it. The stars, planets, etc have no relationship to your personality in any way. > don't put faith in or know much about astrology You're right, you don't, so perhaps don't sit here and defend this pseudo-scientific nonsense that you know nothing about.
1457389 10y ago
Meyers Briggs is meant to be descriptive, but the preponderance of evidence shows that it is not, at all. In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive. In my line if I see someone discuss MBTI with any level of passion or enthusiasm I have learned to distrust their evaluations of personalities and strengths/weaknesses, whether they refer to themselves or others.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive. Misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool.
  - sn9 10y ago
    Yes the uselessness of the tool invalidates the tool.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      And yet, misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool; MBTI can do something the big 5 can't, assign a category which aids in thinking about and understanding another person which as someone else in this discussion points out can be statistically mapped directly to the big 5 making it not at all a useless tool.
      - sn9 10y ago
        This is also true of astrology and MBTI has as much scientific validity and predictive value. No one's disputing that a useless tool can be misused. They're questioning the use of useless tools at all. They give the illusion of understanding to those not interested in evidence.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        > This is also true of astrology False. > and MBTI has as much scientific validity and predictive value. As it can be mapped directly to the big 5, this is also false.
smallnamespace 10y ago
> Meyers Briggs is description It's impossible to describe personalities without implying value judgments. I randomly took the first Google link found under 'Myers Briggs' and ended up here: https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality 'Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight...' https://www.16personalities.com/infp-strengths-and-weaknesses https://www.16personalities.com/infp-strengths-and-weaknesse... 'Too Idealistic – INFPs often take their idealism too far, setting themselves up for disappointment as, again and again, evil things happen in the world.'
- michaelborromeo 10y ago
  The sites you list (and a lot of discussion on MBTI) take the judgments way too far. That's when a lot of people conclude MBTI is junk -- when they see these conclusions based on type. MBTI is basically this: You have a set of observed traits, and from that set we can tell you other traits you likely have based on observing many others that share the same traits. Or in other words... -Observe trait A -Observe trait B -Observe trait C -Extrapolate trait D -Extrapolate trait E What those sites are doing is... -Observe trait A -Extrapolate traits C, M, Q, X, Z
- gnaritas 10y ago
  I suggest you don't understand the distinction I'm making between descriptive and prescriptive.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Please provide your definition then, instead of leaving us all guessing? I interpreted 'prescriptive' as making 'should' rather than 'is' statements.
winston_smith 10y ago
| They are not remotely comparable Oh dear, there seems to be an epidemic of people's comparators not working. You might want to start small: try comparing two oranges, then an orange and an apple. Before long you'll be comparing supernovas to salamanders! (Or perhaps you meant the rather less categorical "I think they're very different". I harp on this because I find "not remotely comparable" excessively dismissive. It's fine to disagree, just don't act like there's no possible way the other person might have a valid point)
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Oh dear, I don't care what you like to harp on, take your sarcasm and shove it.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Astrology is prescriptive If you disregard the people who claim astrology is prescriptive, and pay attention to only those aspects of it that describe tendencies - all the most convincing astrology nuts I've met do this - it can be quite... warming.

gnaritas 10y ago
Those tendencies are still linked to a birthdate which makes them prescriptive, you cannot ignore the prescriptive element of astrology without ignoring astrology entirely.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Myers-Briggs has a type label then assigns traits based on that label. It's not clear to me how that's different. Sure, you can choose your type by responding differently to the questions, or finding a "practitioner" who assigns a type you prefer, but the same applies to astrology: shop around until you hear what you want to here.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > Myers-Briggs has a type label then assigns traits based on that label. False. It's exactly the opposite, the label doesn't assign the traits, rather the traits create the label; if your traits change so does the label, it's nothing more than a description of who you are now according to your own answers to those traits questions. And it aids greatly in think about yourself and others and how people differ and exactly in what ways they can differ. > It's not clear to me how that's different. Then learn more.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  Being linked to your birthday has absolutely nothing to do with being prescriptive. Perhaps horoscopes are only prescriptive, but astrology as a whole is much broader than that. I don't put faith in or know much about astrology, but I do know there are many different types and areas of astrology and not all of them have to do with telling you how to pick your lotto numbers tomorrow. A lot of people talk about signs and astrology in terms of being able to read people and determine personality traits of others.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    It has everything to do with it, and it doesn't matter how or what a lot of people talk about astrology in terms of, it's absolute horseshit regardless of how they try and justify it. The stars, planets, etc have no relationship to your personality in any way. > don't put faith in or know much about astrology You're right, you don't, so perhaps don't sit here and defend this pseudo-scientific nonsense that you know nothing about.

1457389 10y ago

Meyers Briggs is meant to be descriptive, but the preponderance of evidence shows that it is not, at all. In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive. In my line if I see someone discuss MBTI with any level of passion or enthusiasm I have learned to distrust their evaluations of personalities and strengths/weaknesses, whether they refer to themselves or others.

gnaritas 10y ago
> In the corporate world discussion of MBTI very quickly becomes idiotically prescriptive. Misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool.
- sn9 10y ago
  Yes the uselessness of the tool invalidates the tool.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    And yet, misuse of a tool does not invalidate the tool; MBTI can do something the big 5 can't, assign a category which aids in thinking about and understanding another person which as someone else in this discussion points out can be statistically mapped directly to the big 5 making it not at all a useless tool.
    - sn9 10y ago
      This is also true of astrology and MBTI has as much scientific validity and predictive value. No one's disputing that a useless tool can be misused. They're questioning the use of useless tools at all. They give the illusion of understanding to those not interested in evidence.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        > This is also true of astrology False. > and MBTI has as much scientific validity and predictive value. As it can be mapped directly to the big 5, this is also false.

smallnamespace 10y ago

> Meyers Briggs is description It's impossible to describe personalities without implying value judgments. I randomly took the first Google link found under 'Myers Briggs' and ended up here: https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality 'Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight...' https://www.16personalities.com/infp-strengths-and-weaknesses https://www.16personalities.com/infp-strengths-and-weaknesse... 'Too Idealistic – INFPs often take their idealism too far, setting themselves up for disappointment as, again and again, evil things happen in the world.'

michaelborromeo 10y ago
The sites you list (and a lot of discussion on MBTI) take the judgments way too far. That's when a lot of people conclude MBTI is junk -- when they see these conclusions based on type. MBTI is basically this: You have a set of observed traits, and from that set we can tell you other traits you likely have based on observing many others that share the same traits. Or in other words... -Observe trait A -Observe trait B -Observe trait C -Extrapolate trait D -Extrapolate trait E What those sites are doing is... -Observe trait A -Extrapolate traits C, M, Q, X, Z
gnaritas 10y ago
I suggest you don't understand the distinction I'm making between descriptive and prescriptive.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Please provide your definition then, instead of leaving us all guessing? I interpreted 'prescriptive' as making 'should' rather than 'is' statements.

winston_smith 10y ago

| They are not remotely comparable Oh dear, there seems to be an epidemic of people's comparators not working. You might want to start small: try comparing two oranges, then an orange and an apple. Before long you'll be comparing supernovas to salamanders! (Or perhaps you meant the rather less categorical "I think they're very different". I harp on this because I find "not remotely comparable" excessively dismissive. It's fine to disagree, just don't act like there's no possible way the other person might have a valid point)

gnaritas 10y ago
Oh dear, I don't care what you like to harp on, take your sarcasm and shove it.