3 ms·
A stethoscope in the hands of a doctor is a useful, if limited, tool. Don't judge its value if you have never seen one except in the hands of the village idiot.
by biomcgary 4y ago
A stethoscope in the hands of a doctor is a useful, if limited, tool. Don't judge its value if you have never seen one except in the hands of the village idiot. (One could say the same about various programming languages.)
If measuring skull shape during the interview process was a) socially acceptable and b) actually predictive of outcomes, why not? The problem is that it is neither. The reason that it is not a) is because it was not b) and thus easily misused to justify stereotypes.
- Waterluvian 4y agoA galvanometer in a physician’s hand is even more dangerous than that of the village idiot. Just ask my late grandmother who was preyed on until the board de-certified that “doctor.”
- YurgenJurgensen 4y agoAre you asserting that MBTI is either of those things?
- axiomsEnd 4y agoMBTI is not a valid psychological test , so comparing it to frenology is not that riddiculus as it may sound.
- mattnewton 4y agoCitation needed on the actually predictive of outcomes. Myers-Briggs has been about as predictive as a horoscope for me.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago> A stethoscope in the hands of a doctor is a useful, if limited, tool. The MBTI is tea leaves reading. It has been experimentally shown to have no relationship to reality and no predictive power time and time again. Even the axis don’t make sense as some are heavily correlated. The Big 5 is useful but far more complicated. It uses scale and has no pretty little boxes but at least it seems to consistently measure something.
- naniwaduni 4y agoMBTI is the rough equivalent of taking a Big 5 test, but then instead of presenting the scores, it arbitrarily classifies you as Yes/No for each trait based on whether you're above or below average. Even if the scores themselves would be informative, you're still getting basically randomly sorted on noise for the traits where you're just about average.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago> MBTI is the rough equivalent of taking a Big 5 test, but then instead of presenting the scores, it arbitrarily classifies you as Yes/No for each trait No, just no. The Big 5 was statistically designed using factor analysis so that its axis are independent. The axis actually came before their description. It’s actual serious research. Psychologists found that some characteristics clustered together and then spent time understanding what these clusters actually measured. The MBTI however is all over the place. It was designed "using" Jung theory - itself a heap load of garbage - and its axis are total chaos. They even correlate between each others. That’s part of why the distribution of MBTI types is actually so skewed. Seriously the MBTI is a perfect exemple of what’s wrong with psychology nowadays. On the one hand you have academics trying to do serious research and the other hand you have people motivated by greed pushing random rubbish and gathering a following in the corporate world like a pseudo-cult. It’s both sad and maddening.