5 ms·

Here is another: Neuroanatomical Correlates of Extraversion and Neuroticism Christopher I. Wright, Danielle Williams1 et al, Oxford JournalsLife Sciences & Me

by wamatt 14y ago

Here is another: Neuroanatomical Correlates of Extraversion and Neuroticism Christopher I. Wright, Danielle Williams1 et al, Oxford JournalsLife Sciences & Medicine Cerebral Cortex (2006) http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/12/1809.full http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/12/1809.full If you're interested, perhaps a good place to start is Carl Jung's Psychological Types (1921), here it's in my dropbox. I had it digitized into electronic form https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrf6whb66fbmaux/Psychological%20Types.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrf6whb66fbmaux/Psychological%20Ty... Many very intelligent, rational people believe introverts and extroverts exists in the population. Here is a great talk by Susan Cain on introverts http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.html http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.... Look forward to further discussion...

peteretep 14y ago
Could you explain how these relate to the Meyer-Briggs test?
- wamatt 14y ago
  It's a beachhead. It does not increase the perceived validity or precision of the test, but it does help support the claim that the theory and model, may have a basis in reality. That is the foundation of science, models and theories describing reality. There are also plenty of new theories being created today that have yet to be empirically evidenced. But that in itself, does not make that theory unscientific. Thus, "What is science?" This is actually an extremely thorny question and perhaps better suited for another time. Although I should add philosophy of science and epistemology happen to be two passions of mine. Falsificationism is a pretty good start if you are interested. It is by no means not contentious (as is probably any position in contemporary philosophy - but that is another matter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism Many engineering types with a brief flirtation with the philosophy of science, tend to like Popper's idea of a theory being solid, if in theory it is able to be shown to be false. That is the major reason why the MBTI is not at all like horoscopes. Horoscopic predictions cannot be shown to be false (because they are too vague), but the MBTI test can be. For example, I have never ever met a single person that has said or thinks that "all 16 types fit a person equally".

by wamatt 14y ago

peteretep 14y ago

Could you explain how these relate to the Meyer-Briggs test?

wamatt 14y ago
It's a beachhead. It does not increase the perceived validity or precision of the test, but it does help support the claim that the theory and model, may have a basis in reality. That is the foundation of science, models and theories describing reality. There are also plenty of new theories being created today that have yet to be empirically evidenced. But that in itself, does not make that theory unscientific. Thus, "What is science?" This is actually an extremely thorny question and perhaps better suited for another time. Although I should add philosophy of science and epistemology happen to be two passions of mine. Falsificationism is a pretty good start if you are interested. It is by no means not contentious (as is probably any position in contemporary philosophy - but that is another matter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism Many engineering types with a brief flirtation with the philosophy of science, tend to like Popper's idea of a theory being solid, if in theory it is able to be shown to be false. That is the major reason why the MBTI is not at all like horoscopes. Horoscopic predictions cannot be shown to be false (because they are too vague), but the MBTI test can be. For example, I have never ever met a single person that has said or thinks that "all 16 types fit a person equally".