About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bullshit.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But Adam, tell us..., what do you *really* think?!?

Post 2

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bullshit? I didn't see that type :-)

Post 3

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can understand why Adam considers this to be B.S.  I utter the same exclamation when I hear friends launch into a detailed analysis of my astrological sign.  That being said, the Myers-Briggs/Keirsey Temperament Sorter is a different thing altogether.  I have found their work to be extremely helpful in understanding various temperaments. 

On a superficial level, the Type Indicator can seem shallow, as any personality test is bound to only scratch the surface of the multidimensional nature of human beings.  But when all sixteen types are fully understood, it is amazing to see how everyone you meet in reality clearly belongs to one of these basic archetypes. 

Like so many Objectivists, I am an INTJ.  While this type makes up less than 5% of the population-at-large, it is interesting to see how the percentage is much higher amongst Objectivists.  


Post 4

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I said, "bullshit."

I have been asked what I really think. I think that if it were possible for these "types" to have any grounding at all in facts of reality, then given the wide interest and the long time they have "been around" as ungrounded ideas, one would have some evidence.

Why is it that so many on SOLO adhere to Objectivist epistemology except when thinking about themselves?

Post 5

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 9:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, if you're going to think about yourself, you need to perceive your personality from the outside as well as from the inside. As far as the test measures those external consequences of your personality, then Myers-Briggs is a useful tool, though it obviously has its limits.

I took Myers-Briggs before entering college, and again just a few years ago. As could be expected, my earlier typing changed from Intuition (the N in the code) to Sensing (the S in the same spot). My pattern of thought did change dramatically after I left school. I had become immersed in real-world situations, and stopped seeing the world rationalistically, as pure floating abstractions, as some left-brained folks tend to do, unfortunately.

So, not bullshit. Not completely.

Post 6

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Myers-Briggs, like astrology and extra-sensory phenomena, is often "supported" by claims of favorable observation. Such claims are, as far as I know, uniformly explicable as instances of confirmation bias. There is no evidence that any of it corresponds to facts of reality, and by now there would have been evidence, if there were anything to it. Again, bullshit.

Post 7

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, I am curious: What is your take on hypnosis and Nathaniel Branden's interest with such, as well as his arguments against Rand's labeling of anything she she didn't understand as mystical?

Post 8

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 10:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, the page you linked to reminds me of a story Marcus shared with me.  Apparently there was a study created to demonstrate this kind of confirmation bias with regard to astrology.  (Marcus, feel free to jump in if I've missed any important details.)

Participants (not aware of the study's purpose) submitted their birth information, and were each sent an astrological report/forecast.  They were asked to respond regarding the accuracy of the report, and an overwhelming percentage said it was highly accurate.

The problem:  Each person was sent the same report.


Post 9

Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with Adam on this. The thing reeks of bollocks. Why does it keep coming up on SOLOHQ??!!

Marcus, has anyone in the UK done an expose of Colin Fry? The prgramme screens over here, & I'm amazed that such charlatanism is given the time of day.

Linz

Post 10

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 12:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh come on now! How about if I rephrase my non-bullshit response...

I took the test twice, and I remembered seeing the same questions on the test the second time around. There were many that I answered differently from what I had answered the first time, and I recall having thought about how those differences would have affected the outcome of the test.

Like I said, I knew that I had changed in some subtle ways after leaving college, and though I didn't need a test to tell me that, my test results did reflect those changes.

These types of personality tests are a bit more complex than the "What Captain Kangaroo character are you?"-type personality quizzes that have cropped up all over the Internet. The operating principles are the same, though: you reflect on how you would react or how you would describe yourself, you punch your answer into the machine, and the machine spits out a weighted average describing your kind-of personality. The good ones do cast some light on your true nature, and the bad ones pretty obviously miss the mark.

I don't think anyone responding to this poll would post their M-B personality type if they didn't agree with it.

What is troubling about Myers-Briggs is that this sort of test is used by HR types to evaluate potential employees. Nobody missed out on a job by scoring "Mr. Moose" or "Bunny Rabbit." But it makes me wonder if an INTJ has ever been passed over for an ENTP, just because?

If you're claiming that M-B is pure horsecrap, though, then I think you're being willfully ignorant. Is all psychological profiling dangerous? In the wrong hands, yes. In your own hands, no.

Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 1:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I remember many, many years ago reading the book "Please Understand Me" by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates. This is an outline of the 16 major personality types derived from the Myers-Briggs Temperment sorter. I found the book interesting, and like so many Objectivists, I too tested out as an INTJ. However, I remember having a bit of Adam Reed's reaction to this categorizing of people - just like my distaste for IQ and other tests which I see as more often limiting rather than illuminating. After reading the book, my initial reaction was that the categorization was wrong. While I could agree that I saw myself most strongly represented in the INTJ camp, I knew that I was actually an INTJPSE... In other words, I could see various aspects of myself in the descriptions of most of the other categories.

What I did find fascinating was the way Keirsey and Bates formulated the descriptions for each of the major categories. They clearly described very distinct strategies or views adopted by individuals towards dealing with life, and yet, each was presented positively; the way a members within each group would likely describe themselves. I found this illuminating. Under typical conditions if you asked an INTJ-type to make an evaluation of an ESFP, you're likely to get a strongly negative review. However, this is not how the ESFP-types see themselves. Most healthy people enjoy themselves and find value in the way they approach their lives, and it can be instructive to have greater understanding and empathy for their viewpoint. This is what I found so useful from reading this book. It isn't particularly important that you identify and slot any individual into one of these categories, but it is useful to understand that there are a lot of people out there that see/think/evaluate in ways quite differently from you. It is my opinion that this book does a very good job of giving you an overview of these differences, in a way that can be put to good use when dealing with other people.

For example, it is very instructive to learn that as an INTJ, you are represented by about 1% of the population while one of the largest groups (NF or SP ??) make up the majority of teachers. Is it any wonder that many of us found much of our schooling boring, alienating or combative! In a freer educational environment, parents armed with a general assessment of their child's personality might be able to make better school placement decisions and schools might be able to provide a mix of educational options to better serve the students. As another example, while I'm an NT, my wife is a strong SP. Reading this book was helpful in giving us a common language with which to discuss our differences.

So, to Adam, Lindsay, and anyone else who may not have read "Please Understand Me", I would highly recommend it. Take the categories with a grain of scepticism if you like - just as I do, but I think that the descriptive overview of the diverse range of human personality is extremely helpful and can provide useful insights into a number of problems.

If the Meyers-Briggs categories were truly bullshit, then you wouldn't expect the astounding correlation of 72% of all respondents in this group being in the INT camp when this represents the smallest segment of the general populace! We are all here because Rand wrote from an INT perspective and we resonate with not only the message, but the methodology used to arrive at that message. Unfortunately, the great majority of people find this approach alien and incomprehensible. So, let's apply this subject back to the practical world of Objectivism.

Rand formulated her philosophical ideas in the best way she knew how, and she connected with those of us who could understand the message. However, in order to spread that message to a much wider audience, it is going to have to be translated and presented in a different fashion for the majority of people who do not share our analytical Mastermind/Architect (I'm an architect by the way :-)) approach. I'm encouraged to see the other ENT, NF, SP and SJ types represented in this group, because they may be able to provide a communication bridge in areas where we INTs hit a wall.

A sub-theme of some of Nathaniel Branden's later writings, and to some extent the theme of toleration by David Kelley, can be seen as appeals to treat people who approach life differently, with more respect and understanding than has typically been done by Objectivists in the past. As has been pointed out many times, you are never going to convince anyone of you position if you present it with a healthy dose of personal insults. Here is an example of where books like "Please Understand Me" can provide some specific data that can be applied to this problem. If you have a better understanding of another person's values, you can do a better job of not alienating them while you work to change or clarify their viewpoint.

To bring this discussion home, I was going to say something about some of the rhetoric that's let fly during some of the "more passionate" SOLOHQ topics, and point out how what we are discussing above might be applied to one another in this group. But there's no need to do that since everyone here is smart enough to see the implications for themselves!

Regards,

Jeff


Post 12

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 4:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

No you got the story right. It was reported in a scientific journal.

Linz,

I don't know who Colin Fry is, but I gather he is some sort of psychic currently doing a tour in NZ.

There has been a sort of expose here, but in a different way.

A trickster by the name of Derren Brown had a TV program where he went around convincing  entire groups of people that he was psychic, clairvoyant, could speak to the dead, etc. Afterwards he would always explain that it had all been just a trick that anyone could do it, and you didn't need special powers.

Read about his program here:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/derrenbrown.html


Post 13

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 4:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lindsay, Marcus,

Colin Fry's piece of trash show goes out on a satellite/cable pay tv station called Living TV, which also broadcasts Jonathan Edward's equally dire Crossing Over show. James Randi over in the US (an experienced magician who makes clear he has no supernatural powers and now devotes most of his time to exposing fraudsters) has had a thing or two to say about Fry (the relevant section is about two thirds of the way down the page).

I quite agree Derren Brown is brilliant - another great magician/illusionist who claims no special powers and happily exposes those who do as talking bollocks. His most memorable show was a live tv "seance" in which the studio audience, despite being clearly informed the whole thing was a psychological experiment, became convinced they had contacted the spirit of a dead student. Some viewers even phoned in from their homes to report bizzare goings on. Derren ended the show by explaining how he'd manipulated most of the studio audience into choosing the same person to"contact" then stitched the rest up from there. We then saw the student (still alive and kicking) emerging from another part of the studio.

As for the personality test, I came out INTJ, but I defer to Adam et al for comments on its accuracy.

MH


Post 14

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 5:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

As I was taking this test I also thought to myself that it is quite flawed.

 

The reason being that the questions are so vague.

 

If you are asked for example:

 

"Do you like being in crowds?"

 

How can you answer that question without knowing the context.

It depends on the type of crowd, was I alone, where it was, why I was there.

 

Or is the question asking, "Do I like associating with large groups of friends"? Again, that would depend on the context of the situation.

 

Most of the questions had me scratching my head and having an educated guess at exactly what they were asking and in which context I should put it. There were times I thought, well actually both answers can be correct - I will just have to chose one at random.

 

It also strikes me as completely idiotic that this test does not just ask some straight-forward questions like - occupation, age, sex, marital status, favourite films and books etc. Surely that would give the test far more reliable data to work with?

 

It is a bit of "bullshit" psychology as Adam points out.

 

It seems that people want to be told what "type" they are by some universal anonymous test, because they don't have the intelligence and confidence to work it out for themselves.

 

It is exactly the same insecurity that makes people assume that the famous "IQ test" actually indicates accurately how high their intelligence is compared to everybody else.

 

 


Post 15

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 6:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding IQ tests, I have stated in the poll discussion about Mensa that a high score on a standardized IQ test does not equate with a commitment to rationality.

Regarding personality tests, in addition to Myers Briggs, I have also subjected myself to"360 Degree" type surveys across a broad range of character assessments in which 1) I rank myself and 2) my coworkers and associates rank me confidentially.  The results reveal comparisons and contrasts between how the ranked person sees himself versus how others see him.  This can help a person to do a reality check through what Nathaniel Branden calls "psychological visibility."

Even assuming the results prove valid, the question remains: What shall one do with the knowledge?  Do the results scream demands for change and improvement in one's outward behavior, inner character or employment position?  These sorts of tests at least set a context for understanding one's effectiveness at leadership of self and others.  By contrast, Myers-Briggs seems more a test of the subjective "mood" into which you fall on that given day.

Surely students of organizational psychology here in SOLO can comment on this.


Luke Setzer


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One way an understanding of Temperaments can be helpful is in introducing people to Objectivism.   Looking at four very broad but distinctive archetypes, we can immediately see why Objectivism does not speak equally to one and all.  But we can also begin to see how gateways into Objectivism can be created to make it more accessible to all temperament types.

 

NT’s
Ayn Rand, both in her life and her work, is the embodiment of what Keirsey defines as an NT personality type.  NT’s account for a small percent (only a little more the 5% of the population) and yet we will find that the vast majority of Objectivists are part of this select temperament.  This is due to the fact that Objectivism, as it is usually presented, is perfectly suited to the NT temperament.  While the Rational NT might find the SJ a  conformist, the SP a concrete-bound hedonist, and the NF an irrational mystic, it behooves NT’s to accept these temperaments and communicate with these other types on their level.

 

NF’s

Idealists (NF's) constitute a slighty larger fraction of the population at about 8%-10% .  This temperament may encounter a major stumbling block in the word “selfishness.” The NF temperament is prone to take altruist positions, and appealing to reason won’t usually work with them, as they tend to use their emotions as a means of cognition.  What they have going for them is their willingness to discuss and consider abstractions.  Though their Metaphysics may begin with A Does Not Equal A, they are at least able to consider things conceptually.  Because of this, The Fountainhead is an excellent introduction for them, as their feelings of empathy for Howard Roark will enable them to consider the wider philosophy that applies.

 

SP’s

Artisans (Aristotle's Hedone) make up a whopping 35% - 40% of the population. 

Unfortunately, they may not be intrigued by a discussion on metaphysics or epistemology.  These concrete-bound thinkers won’t care much about the fact that Objectivism presents an integrated view of reality.  What they will respond to, however, is anything that may be of practical benefit to their material lives.   Unlike the NF’s, the SP Artisan will be intrigued by the idea of Selfishness being a virtue.  Due to this, The Virtue of Selfishness would be a better introduction for them, although even better would be a personal introduction from a friend.  This personal introduction should in the beginning steer clear of abstract philosophical discussion and focus on concrete applications of a philosophy of selfishness.  SP Artisans love art, and Torres and Kahmi’s book What Art Is will also have appeal as well.  In other words, with these types, instead of starting with Metaphysics and working down to Aesthetics and Politics, they need to start at the bottom of the chain and work their way up.

 

SJ’s

Guardians make up the largest group at 40% -45% of the population.

Like the Artisans, the Guardians will quickly get bored and irritated talking in abstractions.  And unlike the Artisans, they will most likely not respond to the idea of

mere personal benefit.  The SJ Temperament, however, will be enticed by tradition and rigid sets of rules.  Thus, presenting Objectivism as based in Aristotelian metaphysics, with the possibility of enhancing families and communities may interest them.  In addition, if they perceive the Objectivist community as having a strong unwavering code of ethics and a long history of community, they will respond positively.  A great introduction to Objectivism for these folks is a video of the film Ayn Rand, A Sense of Life.  Although the film doesn’t go into the philosophy as such, it does establish a sense of history that will appeal to the guardians.  And the more that Objectivism takes hold as a respected philosophical system, the more the SJ Guardians will accept it.  Until Objectivism becomes a mainstream philosophy, though, they will remain skeptical, as they are of anything that strikes them as iconoclastic.

 

 





Post 17

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As Adam said, it is "Bullshit".  Having also taken it , and a number of other tests over the years, Luke has it right on this - it is a mood-influenced test, which means it is factually worthless. It is in line with earlier ones taken in which I had a choice of being 'artistic' or 'mechanically' inclined, a scholar or a social worker, an athlete or a desk worker, ad nauseum.  Like my hero, Francisco, in my prime, was multi-dexterous, quite able to do many different and diverse tasks with great ability - something which these tests refused to consider as possible, let alone as variable contexting the time of day or amount of sleep or whether had a spat with the neighbor's dog.  

Further, that I didn't, over the course of my time, make full use of this multi-ability as I could have - was my own fault, no blame to any other, only my not gaining proper perspective of the relative importances of these abilities, and to 'master plan' my life so as to make good use of them........ until many no longer exist for me, except in my dreams, a consequence of something called aging. But, even with the reducedness, would still defy catagorification, as it still would depend on the mood - as well as recognising that we all are properly integrated beings, and not particles put together as these tests would have us be.


Post 18

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz writes: "I'm with Adam on this. The thing reeks of bollocks. Why does it keep coming up on SOLOHQ??!! "

Linz, with your permission, I would like to pursue your question a bit more. I have included a blurb and a link to the debate at my site http.//jungianobjectivism.tripod.com, a non-partisan site dedicated to the archiving and exploration of the ideas of Ayn Rand and Carl Jung. I am very interested in promoting debate on the Myers-Briggs test, since it already appears to have provoked some polar responses...and we know it's the polar responses that really fuel the flames of passionate debate here at Solo...with varying results.
I am looking for articles to publish on the topic at Jungian Objectivism, both pro and con...the goal is to take the best of the opposing viewpoints (or any in-between) and highlight them, and leave the reader to decide on their own. An official call will be posted soon with the moderator's approval.

Thanks,
Joe
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/30, 9:50am)


Post 19

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Late last year "The cult of personality: How personality test are leading us to miseducate our children, mismanage our companies, and misunderstand ourselves," by Annie Murphy Paul was published by the Free Press. She smashes the personality test movement.  Also see my posts at the "Myers-Briggs, Carl Jung and Me" thread.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.