HR made me take a personality test...

[Ultralight]

I believe I covered that. (As I suggested, the quality of evidence is what matters, and whether it stands the test of time.)

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?

Wait? Something has been proven unreliable? How did that happen?

[Ultralight]

Evidence that supports whatever your opinion is, I bet.
Tbe expression "evidence-based" just makes me laugh. Whose evidence? Whose "facts?"

Remember when you said this?

How can you be sure than "quality" evidence is not just whatever supports someone's opinion?

[JaneV2.0]

Remember when you said this?

How can you be sure than "quality" evidence is not just whatever supports someone's opinion?

"Stands the test of time."

[Ultralight]

"Stands the test of time."

Is "the test of time" a form of evidence?

[Alan]

.....You can now thank me for enlightening you.

Packy?

[iris lilies]

Is "the test of time" a form of evidence?

Test of time allows other, conflicting evidence to come to light.

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.

[iris lilies]

Packy?

Thank meeeeee!!!

hahaha.

[Teacher Terry]

Alan: thanks for making me laugh out loud

[Ultralight]

Packy?

Got the message.

Thread abandoned.

[ApatheticNoMore]

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 a natural INTP, everyone wants to be like me.

I'm one of the lucky ones as well.