Nathanial.Dread wrote:Wolfnippletip wrote:PH0Man wrote:I fail to see a connection
I take it Anne doesn't trust the results of a test based on self assessment.
I very rarely say this, but I agree with Anne on this one. I think that the DK effect is a really illuminating lens through which to look at the MBTI. For those who don't want to click the link, the DK effect is the illusion of competency you see in people who cannot accurately gauge their own abilities. It seems like most people are guilty of this cognitive bias. We all think we know more, and are more talented than we actually are.
Psychedelic people seem particularly prone to this one actually, especially in the field of self knowledge. How many white dudes with dreads have you met who pontificate endlessly about how enlightened they are, and how small their egos are?
zknarc wrote:
I have to disagree. The autistic spectrum is known to be much more heavily populated by males where INTJ and it’s related MTBI types are heavily over-represented.
Then again I also do not subscribe to patriarchy and other associated feminist beliefs.
You don't have to 'subscribe' to feminist beliefs to be skeptical of the fluffy world of psychology. It's an irrefutable fact that culture effects how science is interpreted and when you're dealing with something as vague as psychology, it's not a hard pill to swallow that preconceived notions, which are culturally based, rather than based in scientific facts, might color interpretations of the data.
Gender, the sex binary, all of these are things that begin to fall apart when you shed your assumptions.
For the record, I'm a working neuroscientist, I'm not some Tumblerina.
You're making an assumption that INTJ means anything worth discussing, and the science just doesn't back that up.
Blessings
~ND
I feel like we've already touched on this. You're approaching this from a 100% scientific standpoint, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that, but as Jaffster said earlier, the test doesn't make claims to be scientifically accurate, and I don't believe anyone in this thread does so either.
I still don't believe it needs to be scientifically proven in order to be useful in some ways. To make a perhaps farfetched, but somewhat relevant comparison, you don't know if the psychedelic experience is "real" or not with 100% certainty. But does that really matter? It doesn't mean you can't benefit from the experience and learn something new. Even if this makes you reflect on yourself and other people you can gain a new perspective to communicating with others and analysing them.
On a side note, this discussion has started to remind me of the one on Dmnstr8s Shamanism thread, much of it boiling down to the debate on science vs. "quackery"
For those interested in that, here is the link:
https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=425138#post425138That being said, I do understand the problems that come with these kind of tests. As for the suggested DK effect, I think in this case a more suitable alternative would be the Forer effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effectIt was posted by someone in the thread from 2010 discussing the MBTI, the link to the thread is here:
https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=425138#post425138Peace
All posts written by Illuminated are entirely fictional and are as such not linked to any events in real life.
"If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed."