Printable View
In the context of employment, access to the inner workings of my mind is not one of the things I am selling, and I view these tests as an invasion of my privacy, much akin to asking me which sexual positions I prefer with which sorts of partners, what my religion is, or what political party I belong to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Do you acknowledge that science comprises different factions arguing evidence on both (or all) sides of many questions? Or do you think that once evidence is presented by one researcher, the science is settled? As in phrenology, the miasma theory, "humors", the stress theory of peptic ulcers...Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Ignaz Semmelweis paid the price for not being able to present "evidence" for the effectiveness of hand washing in presenting infection. Many patients paid a greater price.
I got asked in my interview, I'm an INTJ but knew if I admitted to the J I would not get the job. (It was clear the boss has a loose handle on understanding results) I lied and said INTP and got the job. It was a group interview and everyone went, "phew, not a J," so good call on lying, lol. How stupid the whole thing was. I went on as a J for 11 yrs and no one noticed or if they did, they did not care.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodeosweetheart
Tell me how you want me to score on the Myers Briggs, and I'll get that result.
Next...
I'm a natural INTP, everyone wants to be like me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by freshstart
As an INTJ, I resemble that remark. People run screaming from the room when I enter. !pow!
rrrrr rrrrr
Some issues of science are much less settled than others. But some are rather settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
That is why I mentioned repeating experiments and such above.
Why was phrenology debunked?
Again, if you got a bacterial infection I bet dollars to donuts you'd take antibiotics. There ain't no way you'd say some silly crap like: "The science isn't settled on this cipro!"
Right?
Bae, you must have missed the point when I said people voluntarily took the test and we used it for conflict resolution at work or in marriage counseling. Nobody was forced to take it. I do not think people should be asked their personality type in a job interview. There are appropriate and inappropriate uses of tests like anything else. Also the tests don't exist in a vacuum. They are part of a package accompanied by a good clinical interview by a qualified professional, a review of medical records if you are helping someone return to work and they have a disability, etc. The point is to use the information to help people in various parts of their lives not to exclude them from things. Tests are only one of many tools that a professional can use. The testing companies spend a small fortune to ensure that they are valid and reliable, etc. That is one reason the tests themselves are expensive. UL: I am not going to teach a psychometric course for you online but I have 24 years of experience in this field as well as 3 grad degrees but you won't care abut any of that because you like to argue and be annoying.
I believe I covered that. ("As I suggested, the quality of evidence is what matters, and whether it stands the test of time".)Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
I'd prefer not to have to take antibiotics (fluoroquinolones, especially). They're notoriously overused. But I would take one of the older, proven ones if it were absolutely necessary. I'm not one who uncritically believes Pharma's "evidence," much of which has been proven unreliable.
I believe I covered that. (As I suggested, the quality of evidence is what matters, and whether it stands the test of time.)Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
I'd prefer not to have to take antibiotics (fluoroquinolones, especially). They're notoriously overused. But I would take one of the older, proven ones if it were absolutely necessary. I'm not one who uncritically believes Pharma's "evidence," much of which has been proven unreliable. I think your example is a classic red herring.
I thought you said evidence was just the person's opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Wait? Something has been proven unreliable? How did that happen?
Remember when you said this?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
How can you be sure than "quality" evidence is not just whatever supports someone's opinion?
"Stands the test of time."Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Is "the test of time" a form of evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Packy?Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Test of time allows other, conflicting evidence to come to light.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Most importantly, time allows society to move on past specific interpretations of the scientific evidence. It is seldom pure science we plebs hear about. By the time the science comes to our ears, it is already tied to societal issues and views.
Thank meeeeee!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
hahaha.
Alan: thanks for making me laugh out loud:cool:
Got the message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Thread abandoned.
Even if the tests were evidence based that's neither here nor there in that they shouldn't be used in employment - not the employers business and should be illegal.
Now if you went to a career counselor and they gave you the test, it is your decision how much stock to put in it etc.. It isn't always so clean as people tend to revere authorities like counselors a bit too much and that's cultural as well (even those who aren't particularly authoritarian). But .... much psychology is more theories than science.
Anyway science and social science does not take place in some vacuum where it's all about the scientific method, not in the modern world. Studies for one thing are almost always FUNDED BY SOMEONE. The difference in results in studies of those paid by pharma to research anti-depressants and those funded outside of pharma, yea those funded by pharma were far more favorable. Pharma was ghostwriting anti-depressant studies as well. It was a scandal. There are huge industries trying to push the science in their favor, Monsanto funds UC Davis, etc.. Much social science and even science research has been shown to be unrepeatable. Unrepeatable. That's not science. But it often does make up the common body of knowledge of what people think they know. There's also built in biases to scientific publishing - such as negative results (ie hypothesis not shown) which are as valid a result as anything, not tending to get published.
I'm one of the lucky ones as well.Quote:
I'm a natural INTP, everyone wants to be like me.
I could maybe see how Meyer/Briggs could be useful as a team exercise so you know how to expect others to handle certain things and how they communicate. But to just ask in an interview what is your type, that is pointless and to God-forbid hire on that little info is ridiculous. Eventually she stopped asking type because no new employees new what the heck she was talking about, that was funny.
Packy, we hardly knew ye. . .
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by rodeosweetheart
I miss Packy, at least he had a sense of humor, however ill-timed, ill-advised, or misanthropic. I think of him when the "people who mow too much" break out their gas-belching noise machines. Which should be about now. Three. Two. One...
Up where we live, we are back to a foot of snow on the ground, two in the drifts. Sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I've seen my neighbor mow his grass when half his lawn was still under snow. And he waters it in March, when most every night is below freezing. So he can mow more.