2 ms·

I think you still misunderstand me. The reason we ended up here is because I was trying to suggest there is nothing especially bad about the Jungean shit compar

I think you still misunderstand me. The reason we ended up here is because I was trying to suggest there is nothing especially bad about the Jungean shit compared to the rest of the field. The more recent ideas (specifically CBT and DBT) in the field simply have not had a chance to be disproven yet. In their introduction, the Jungean methods produced some results, and now we are onto new hotness. Like angular vs react, the preferred framework of the experts changes. And I never said that personality tests have anything to do with clinical psychology. I said that psychology (in general) was about having structured conversations about and understanding of your feelings. That includes the clinical side and the "mushy" side that results in things like "life coaching." I am likening the MBTI to CBT because they are both fundamentally frameworks for reasoning about your feelings, just in different contexts. This is also why I brought in autism tests, which are another way of fitting your cognition into a framework. People like to claim that personality tests find some sort of "ground truth" about yourself, which is not true, and this is why people (rightly) liken them to astrology. They are a good basis for talking through your cognitive processes, and nothing more. On the clinical side, this is why Jordan Peterson talking about dragons eating boys' mothers is as compelling to people as CBT. And why it gets clinical results. The difference in the methods is really very marginal, and almost certainly lost in the noise between the statistical analysis, the small sample size, and the lack of controls in the experiments. The importance seems to be that there is a framework that the users believe in and find useful. Clearly you don't believe in personality testing and you strongly believe in CBT, which is fine. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. --- To summarize, my argument here is: 1. All the methods for understanding and working with your cognition are somewhat dubious and poorly-understood. 2. All the methods can still be useful because they help you think about yourself. 3. The context in which the method is used is actually much more important than the method. 4. There's pretty good evidence that trying to understand your cognition helps. And that these 4 points apply equally to things like Myers-Briggs (which is based on the ridiculous musings of a few Germans with oedipal complexes) and things like CBT or Autism tests (both of which have okay science, at least by today's standards). I will also add that this is pretty heretical according to your field, so I don't expect you to agree, but it's what seems to be suggested by the meta-science on the field itself.

runarberg 4y ago
You are aware that what you are suggesting is the equivalent of saying that alchemy is just as bad as the rest of chemistry, or that general relativity will be disproven just like the Ptolemaic model was before it. Jungian psychoanalysis is not modern psychology just like alchemy is not modern chemistry. It used to be, but that is history. Psychometrics is still a part of psychology, but it is my opinion that they are on their way out, just like string theorists are on their way out of cosmology. You may be right that cognitive behavior therapy will be disproven some day (as may general relativity) but it is gross simplification to state that there is no difference in the quality of the models, theory, and practice of the psychoanalytic methods before it. The difference is as big as that of alchemy to modern chemistry. To state otherwise is to reject modern science. This also applies to Jordan Peterson which does not employ modern scientific methods in his theories, and can easily be equated to modern day alchemists. The bulk of the psychological field is working within the framework of modern science, even when historically this was far from truth, and even when certain famous individuals don’t. I reject your argument because I believe a difference in quality exists between scientific models. I believe scientific progress can be made, and I believe good science can yield better results than poor science. I believe that Myers-Briggs is an exceptionally bad science, exceptionally bad even in the context of psychometrics, which is still rather poor science. I believe there is no solid proof for existence of different personality types, and models that use personality types are inherently worse than models which use modern understanding of human interaction, behavior and cognition. Just like models that put the earth at the center of the universe are worse than models use modern understanding of gravity and mass.

runarberg 4y ago

You are aware that what you are suggesting is the equivalent of saying that alchemy is just as bad as the rest of chemistry, or that general relativity will be disproven just like the Ptolemaic model was before it. Jungian psychoanalysis is not modern psychology just like alchemy is not modern chemistry. It used to be, but that is history. Psychometrics is still a part of psychology, but it is my opinion that they are on their way out, just like string theorists are on their way out of cosmology. You may be right that cognitive behavior therapy will be disproven some day (as may general relativity) but it is gross simplification to state that there is no difference in the quality of the models, theory, and practice of the psychoanalytic methods before it. The difference is as big as that of alchemy to modern chemistry. To state otherwise is to reject modern science. This also applies to Jordan Peterson which does not employ modern scientific methods in his theories, and can easily be equated to modern day alchemists. The bulk of the psychological field is working within the framework of modern science, even when historically this was far from truth, and even when certain famous individuals don’t. I reject your argument because I believe a difference in quality exists between scientific models. I believe scientific progress can be made, and I believe good science can yield better results than poor science. I believe that Myers-Briggs is an exceptionally bad science, exceptionally bad even in the context of psychometrics, which is still rather poor science. I believe there is no solid proof for existence of different personality types, and models that use personality types are inherently worse than models which use modern understanding of human interaction, behavior and cognition. Just like models that put the earth at the center of the universe are worse than models use modern understanding of gravity and mass.