4 ms·

> Despite the Myers-Briggs test being rejected by mainstream science, people like him are leading its online resurgence. This claim pops up throughout the arti

by aazaa 7y ago

> Despite the Myers-Briggs test being rejected by mainstream science, people like him are leading its online resurgence. This claim pops up throughout the article, but without evidence. What would be an example of an unambiguous scientific "rejection" of Myers-Briggs?

ggggtez 7y ago
Let's put it this way: you've put people into buckets. Great. Science says: if these buckets represent something inherent about the person, then you should be able to predict using this information. Maybe you can predict the likelihood of someone getting depression? Or of having a high paying job? And those predictions have to be better than random guesses, and hopefully better than existing tests for those things. So, where is the scientific evidence for Myers-Brigs? What exactly does the typing predict about a person that we can't predict better using other methods?
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  I'd get depressed if I was put into a bucket.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    Not if there were other crabs in there with you!
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Nahh, The Count is getting the hell out of Barrytown.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
DocTomoe 7y ago
> unambiguous scientific "rejection" Given that we have scientists reject man-made climate change and Darwinism, and, for the longest time, mainstream belief was geocentric, I would guess there is no such thing as an unambiguous scientific rejection of anything, and in fact, such a rejection would be - in itself - unscientific
- rsynnott 7y ago
  > Given that we have scientists reject man-made climate change and Darwinism Cranks, yes. > for the longest time, mainstream belief was geocentric Largely before the invention of science as we know it, tho.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Two of the best cases I'm aware of scientific viewpoints on a massively significant fact or theory changing involve the age of the Earth and the dynamics of continents. As of 1800, the Earth was thought to be variously by mainstream proponents anywhere from 6,000 years (Biblical chronology) to "old", possibly even 30 to 300 million years old (geological chronology). A leading geological text suggested the actual duration was unknowable. The continents were thought to have been in their present locations for all of time, though it was also clear that land had moved veritcally -- there were fossils of seashells and aquatic creatured found high on mountains. What shifted the age of the Earth calculus most was discoveries in chemistry and physics, most especially of radioactivity and radioactive elements, and the fact of half lives, though also of spectroscopy and the first discovery of an element not initially noted on Earth: helium (named for the Sun). Radioactivity provided both mechanism and clock to explain and measure a longer geological history. Lord Kelvin's calculations of the age of the Sun were based on conversion of gravitational potential energy to heat -- he had no other explanation for the Sun's energy -- and this would have been exhausted after a few tens of millions of years. Though that figure conflicted with geological estimates based on sedimentary deposits suggesting 100s of millions of years' accumulation. In the early 1900s, measures of radioactive decay and daughter elements showed conclusively that the Earth was at least 0.5 - 1 billion years old, and likely more, whilst hydrogen-helium fusion explained a far longer life for the sun. At the same time, the theory of "continental drift" (now "plate tectonics") was first proposed, and rejected (~1914). Over time, more evidence, largely again from radioactive decay, bolstered by meteoric asteroid and later Lunar rock samples, pinned down the age of the Earth to 4.5 billion years +/- 1%, and increased evidence in the form of continental shapes, common geology, fossils, subsurface ridges, rift and convection faults, and more, finally proved plate tectonics beyond a doubt. The theory was finally formally accepted in the mid-1960s. Radioactivity played a role in the latter as well as it accounts for roughly half of the interior heat of the Earth (the other half being residual gravitational potential energy of formation). The story (most especially of plate tectonics) is told by Naomi Oreskes, science historian, in Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth. https://www.worldcat.org/title/plate-tectonics-an-insiders-history-of-the-modern-theory-of-the-earth/oclc/1047300105 https://www.worldcat.org/title/plate-tectonics-an-insiders-h... As a study in how science changes its mind, over profound differences of opinion and much institutional and social resistance, it's a fascinating story. Plate tectonics is now not only a central theory of geology, but the central theory and the fundamental explanatory mechanism of the discipline. It's the idea which moved the science from a mere cataloguing and collecting phase to a theoretical and explanatory discipline.
compiler-guy 7y ago
Perhaps the best evidence for this is that it never makes an appearance in scientific journals.
LiquidSky 7y ago
The "Criticism" section of the M-B Wikipedia article explains the scientific objections to M-B on a number of different grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
dredmorbius 7y ago
I'd compiled a list of critical articles some time back, though most are popular treatments: https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qvifcykyzm2wfhhlrf6qfa https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qvifcykyzm2wfhhlrf6qfa The exception being: "Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." By Pittenger, David J. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol 57(3), Sum 2005, 210-221 https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-11299-006 https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-11299-006

by aazaa 7y ago

ggggtez 7y ago

Let's put it this way: you've put people into buckets. Great. Science says: if these buckets represent something inherent about the person, then you should be able to predict using this information. Maybe you can predict the likelihood of someone getting depression? Or of having a high paying job? And those predictions have to be better than random guesses, and hopefully better than existing tests for those things. So, where is the scientific evidence for Myers-Brigs? What exactly does the typing predict about a person that we can't predict better using other methods?

inflatableDodo 7y ago
I'd get depressed if I was put into a bucket.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Not if there were other crabs in there with you!
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Nahh, The Count is getting the hell out of Barrytown.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

DocTomoe 7y ago

> unambiguous scientific "rejection" Given that we have scientists reject man-made climate change and Darwinism, and, for the longest time, mainstream belief was geocentric, I would guess there is no such thing as an unambiguous scientific rejection of anything, and in fact, such a rejection would be - in itself - unscientific

rsynnott 7y ago
> Given that we have scientists reject man-made climate change and Darwinism Cranks, yes. > for the longest time, mainstream belief was geocentric Largely before the invention of science as we know it, tho.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Two of the best cases I'm aware of scientific viewpoints on a massively significant fact or theory changing involve the age of the Earth and the dynamics of continents. As of 1800, the Earth was thought to be variously by mainstream proponents anywhere from 6,000 years (Biblical chronology) to "old", possibly even 30 to 300 million years old (geological chronology). A leading geological text suggested the actual duration was unknowable. The continents were thought to have been in their present locations for all of time, though it was also clear that land had moved veritcally -- there were fossils of seashells and aquatic creatured found high on mountains. What shifted the age of the Earth calculus most was discoveries in chemistry and physics, most especially of radioactivity and radioactive elements, and the fact of half lives, though also of spectroscopy and the first discovery of an element not initially noted on Earth: helium (named for the Sun). Radioactivity provided both mechanism and clock to explain and measure a longer geological history. Lord Kelvin's calculations of the age of the Sun were based on conversion of gravitational potential energy to heat -- he had no other explanation for the Sun's energy -- and this would have been exhausted after a few tens of millions of years. Though that figure conflicted with geological estimates based on sedimentary deposits suggesting 100s of millions of years' accumulation. In the early 1900s, measures of radioactive decay and daughter elements showed conclusively that the Earth was at least 0.5 - 1 billion years old, and likely more, whilst hydrogen-helium fusion explained a far longer life for the sun. At the same time, the theory of "continental drift" (now "plate tectonics") was first proposed, and rejected (~1914). Over time, more evidence, largely again from radioactive decay, bolstered by meteoric asteroid and later Lunar rock samples, pinned down the age of the Earth to 4.5 billion years +/- 1%, and increased evidence in the form of continental shapes, common geology, fossils, subsurface ridges, rift and convection faults, and more, finally proved plate tectonics beyond a doubt. The theory was finally formally accepted in the mid-1960s. Radioactivity played a role in the latter as well as it accounts for roughly half of the interior heat of the Earth (the other half being residual gravitational potential energy of formation). The story (most especially of plate tectonics) is told by Naomi Oreskes, science historian, in Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth. https://www.worldcat.org/title/plate-tectonics-an-insiders-history-of-the-modern-theory-of-the-earth/oclc/1047300105 https://www.worldcat.org/title/plate-tectonics-an-insiders-h... As a study in how science changes its mind, over profound differences of opinion and much institutional and social resistance, it's a fascinating story. Plate tectonics is now not only a central theory of geology, but the central theory and the fundamental explanatory mechanism of the discipline. It's the idea which moved the science from a mere cataloguing and collecting phase to a theoretical and explanatory discipline.

compiler-guy 7y ago

Perhaps the best evidence for this is that it never makes an appearance in scientific journals.

LiquidSky 7y ago

The "Criticism" section of the M-B Wikipedia article explains the scientific objections to M-B on a number of different grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

dredmorbius 7y ago

I'd compiled a list of critical articles some time back, though most are popular treatments: https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qvifcykyzm2wfhhlrf6qfa https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qvifcykyzm2wfhhlrf6qfa The exception being: "Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." By Pittenger, David J. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol 57(3), Sum 2005, 210-221 https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-11299-006 https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-11299-006