3 ms·

I disagree. There’s no casual pathway between Astrology and who you are. With MBTI you respond to a questionnaire, so there is some connection to you. How accur

I disagree. There’s no casual pathway between Astrology and who you are. With MBTI you respond to a questionnaire, so there is some connection to you. How accurate this is, well that’s a topic for debate. However, the most accurate personality models are also based on questionnaires of this sort. Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I think it’s quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally, has predictive power.

sneak 4y ago
> How accurate this is, well that’s a topic for debate. Not really; we know for a fact it is not accurate (and thus irrelevant). You can debate it if you wish but the facts of the matter have been long settled.
- MadSudaca 4y ago
  Depends on how you define accuracy.
- jiggunjer 4y ago
  Accuracy isn't binary. Not being perfect doesn't mean it is irrelevant. My map of the city could be more accurate but it still gets me where I need to go.
- DarkNova6 4y ago
  That’s only in regards to the questionnaire, not the underlying system. If you understand the cognitive function, your prediction is a magnitude more accurate than any test.
- bovermyer 4y ago
  OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems with your two sentences here. > we know Who knows? Who is "we?" > it is not accurate Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY FALSE." It is a range. > (and thus irrelevant) Even false statements or frameworks can provide interesting insights into how we think about a domain. > the facts of the matter Which facts would that be? > have been long settled By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly tested?
- yamazakiwi 4y ago
  It doesn't matter how we define accuracy, I argue relevancy comes into play moreso when they stated this model is useful, making accuracy a non-issue, even if that's not what their exact words.
paulcole 4y ago
> Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I think it’s quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally, has predictive power. Replace MBTI w/ astrology in this sentence. And just like astrology, you want MBTI to be true so it influences your answers on the questionnaire. Kinda like a Ouija board.
- MadSudaca 4y ago
  The desire for your beliefs to be true also affects scientists and biases the scientific enterprise. That doesn’t mean science is not reliable. Same applies here. The bias exists, it doesn’t mean that the results are useless.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    > The bias exists, it doesn’t mean that the results are useless. The same can be said of astrology even though it’s not science.
- pegasus 4y ago
  The opposite effect (generated by one wanting astrology to be false - and there are plenty of reasons for that inclination also) might also be afoot.

sneak 4y ago

> How accurate this is, well that’s a topic for debate. Not really; we know for a fact it is not accurate (and thus irrelevant). You can debate it if you wish but the facts of the matter have been long settled.

MadSudaca 4y ago
Depends on how you define accuracy.
jiggunjer 4y ago
Accuracy isn't binary. Not being perfect doesn't mean it is irrelevant. My map of the city could be more accurate but it still gets me where I need to go.
DarkNova6 4y ago
That’s only in regards to the questionnaire, not the underlying system. If you understand the cognitive function, your prediction is a magnitude more accurate than any test.
bovermyer 4y ago
OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems with your two sentences here. > we know Who knows? Who is "we?" > it is not accurate Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY FALSE." It is a range. > (and thus irrelevant) Even false statements or frameworks can provide interesting insights into how we think about a domain. > the facts of the matter Which facts would that be? > have been long settled By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly tested?
yamazakiwi 4y ago
It doesn't matter how we define accuracy, I argue relevancy comes into play moreso when they stated this model is useful, making accuracy a non-issue, even if that's not what their exact words.

paulcole 4y ago

> Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I think it’s quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally, has predictive power. Replace MBTI w/ astrology in this sentence. And just like astrology, you want MBTI to be true so it influences your answers on the questionnaire. Kinda like a Ouija board.

MadSudaca 4y ago
The desire for your beliefs to be true also affects scientists and biases the scientific enterprise. That doesn’t mean science is not reliable. Same applies here. The bias exists, it doesn’t mean that the results are useless.
- paulcole 4y ago
  > The bias exists, it doesn’t mean that the results are useless. The same can be said of astrology even though it’s not science.
pegasus 4y ago
The opposite effect (generated by one wanting astrology to be false - and there are plenty of reasons for that inclination also) might also be afoot.