11
   

A Psychometric Instrument Better than Myers Briggs.

 
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 10:34 am
@ebrown p,
Your logical fallacy is "begging the question".

And you still have not addressed whether you were mistaken in your first post, or deliberately misleading. Which is it?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 10:40 am
@Thomas,
I think it's a valid measuring tool, for what it means to measure. It's not perfect; there's a wider margin of error than one would accept in, say, physics, but that's kinda the nature of psychology.

Some people are willing to use the measure, despite its weaknesses, and some people aren't. That's fair enough.

But saying "it's no better than astrology, and we all know that astrology is bunk, and since astrology is bunk, then the MBTI is as well" is almost laugh-out-loud funny.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:08 am
@DrewDad,
Also, something that people get confused about is the personality types. While there are 16 personality types, they aren't meant to be rigid descriptors for every person within that personality type.

Each of the four measures (introvert/extrovert, sensing/intuitive, thinking/feeling, sensing/perceiving) is a spectrum. Also, people's personality types change under stress.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 01:53 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
From DrewDad's explanations (and yes I do know he can speak for himself), I get the impression that he isn't actually using Myers Briggs as a scientific device. Rather, he's using it as a rhetorical device. When DrewDad observes people irritating each other, Myers-Briggs character types help him frame issues that might cause the irritation. As a rhetorical device, Myers Briggs does make sense to me.


The issue remains that there is no objective science here.

I can understand an argument that having 16 classifications of people provides a framework for discussion. But any generalizations or assumptions beyond this are arbitrary until they are challenged and tested objectively.

Thomas, the rhetorical device you suggest seems so arbitrary as to not be useful. There is no predictive power to such a rhetorical device, and there is no way to test whether one rhetorical device is better then another. It seems too arbitrary to me to be useful.

But the real issue I have with this whole thing is the fact that the claims being made are make without having been challenged or tested in any objective scientific way.

This is the part that really bothers me.


DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 02:10 pm
@ebrown p,
So don't use it if you don't like it.

It appears that you're not going to answer about whether you made a ridiculous error on the first post, or if you were being intentionally misleading.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 03:04 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Thomas, the rhetorical device you suggest seems so arbitrary as to not be useful. There is no predictive power to such a rhetorical device, and there is no way to test whether one rhetorical device is better then another. It seems too arbitrary to me to be useful.

Rhetorical devices don't need any predictive power to be useful. Another rhetorical device a psychoanalyst might use is to ask: "If you were an animal, what would you be?" Then you would give an answer, and some of the following discussion would be framed in terms of this animal's behavior. Sure, there's no predictive power there, but the device can be useful even if there isn't.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 04:48 pm
@Thomas,
Sure Thomas-- as long as people understand this... and that they aren't misled.

The people behind the Myers-Briggs (R) aren't marketing their product as such a rhetorical device. They are making money because they suggest their indicator means something-- even though this assumption is supported by any kind of objective scientific testing.

If this is being used to start a discussion, then fine-- use whatever rhetorical device you want. The MBTI is certainly as good as any other.

But using the MBTI in a way that effects things that are important, for example peoples careers (either in job placement or in hiring decisions) is completely irresponsible, given that any significance of the MBTI hasn't been tested in any objectively scientific way.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:33 pm
@ebrown p,
OK, I'm going to go with "deliberately misleading" then. So much for your "scientific inquiry" if you're willing to deceive folks.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:12 pm
@Thomas,
I think you're still expecting too much from what is a simple, basic test.

A ruler only measures length, and can only provide me limited data.

The MBTI only measures a few personality preferences. It can predict behavior, though.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:05 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I think you're still expecting too much from what is a simple, basic test.

Apparently though, so does the Myers Briggs Foundation. Unlike you, they have no qualms at all about marketing the test as a tool for organizations to manage Human Resources, for students to pick their major, and for job seekers to choose their occupation. Do you think that's too much to ask of the test? If so, don't take it up with me---take it up with the organization that serves as its warden.

DrewDad wrote:
A ruler only measures length, and can only provide me limited data.

But everybody agrees that the thing it provides limited data about---length---exists. Not everybody agrees that Jungian types exist. And the test itself isn't there to verify or refute Jung's psychological theories. Its job is to expound the theory, "to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people’s lives" (as the Myers-Briggs Foundation puts it). Unless you subscribe to C.G. Jung's theory in the first place, there's no reason to believe the test measures anything substantive at all.

DrewDad wrote:
The MBTI only measures a few personality preferences. It can predict behavior, though.

It's possible, I guess, but I'll reserve judgment on this until I see statistical evidence. Judging by the articles I found with a Google Scholar search for "Myers Briggs predictions", the jury is still out on this claim of yours. (This is based on the articles' abstracts. Downloading the full texts would cost $30 each, which is more than I'm willing to spend on this project.)
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 10:40 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
A ruler only measures length, and can only provide me limited data.

But everybody agrees that the thing it provides limited data about---length---exists. Not everybody agrees that Jungian types exist. And the test itself isn't there to verify or refute Jung's psychological theories. Its job is to expound the theory, "to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people’s lives" (as the Myers-Briggs Foundation puts it). Unless you subscribe to C.G. Jung's theory in the first place, there's no reason to believe the test measures anything substantive at all.

Yeah, that's the problem with personality. Measurement is a bitch, since there's nothing physical to measure. We keep going down this road, and we'll get into solipsism.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:35 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Measurement is a bitch.


No it is not. Measurement is a part of objective science. If there is something worthwhile to measure, then measuring it is not that difficult.

You make the claim that the MBTI can "predict behavior"-- a scientific test is not that hard to set up.

Someone making his claim first needs to define what they mean. They should pick out one or two specific predictions that you can make based on the MBTI.

Then you get some significantly large number of people and divide them into three groups. One group will be MBTI tested. The second group will take the MBTI test, but instead of being given their "true" MBTI designation, they will be given a randomly selected MBTI designation (that isn't "correct"). The third group will be given no MBTI designation.

Then you make whatever prediction you think can be made about these groups. The researchers and evaluators will have to predict this behavior, or to evaluate whether the prediction was accurate, without knowing whether they have the "real" MBTI indicator, or the falsified one.

With this experiment, you can come up with quantitative statistics about how well the MBTI worked a predictive tool that will have nothing to do with researcher bias.

Similar scientific research has been done on career choice. The independent research on this shows the MBTI does no better then a random designation (I am discounting the MBTI funded research results that independent researches were unable to reproduce).

But the point is this: These claims should be backed by objective scientific research. The MBTI promoters should be backing their claims with objective science research. The MBTI promoters are not backing their claims with objective scientific research.

The independent science research hasn't shown that the MBTI indicators has any value as a predictive tool.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 08:58 am
@ebrown p,
Quote:

Test Validity

The overall problem with psychological tests concerns their ability to measure what they are supposed to measure.

The accuracy, or usefulness, of a test is known as its validity. For example, suppose you wanted to develop a test to determine which of several job applicants would work well in a bank. Would an arithmetic test be a valid test of job success? Well, not if the job required other skills, such as manual dexterity or social skills.

Construct Validity refers to the ability of a test to measure the psychological construct, such as depression, that it was designed to measure. One way this can be assessed is through the test’s convergent or divergent validity, which refers to whether a test can give results similar to other tests of the same construct and different from tests of different constructs.


Content Validity refers to the ability of a test to sample adequately the broad range of elements that compose a particular construct.


Criterion-related Validity refers to the ability of a test to predict someone’s performance on something. For example, before actually using a test to predict whether someone will be successful at a particular job, you would first want to determine whether persons already doing well at that job (the criterion measure) also tend to score high on your proposed test. If so, then you know that the test scores are related to the criterion.

Test Reliability

The ability of a test to give consistent results is known as its reliability. For example, a mathematics test that asks you to solve problems of progressive difficulty might be very reliable because if you couldn’t do calculus yesterday you probably won’t be able to do it tomorrow or the next day. But a personality test that asks ambiguous questions which you answer just according to how you feel in the moment may say one thing about you today and another thing about you next month.

Internal Consistency Reliability refers to how well all the test items relate to each other.


Test-retest Reliability refers to how well results from one administration of the test relate to results from another administration of the same test at a later time.

Note that without reliability, there can be no validity. A thermometer, for example, may be a valid way to measure temperature, but if the electronic thermometer you are using has bad batteries and it gives erratic (that is, unreliable) results, then its reading is invalid until the batteries are changed.

Note also that no psychological test is ever completely valid or reliable because the human psyche is just too complicated to know anything about it with full confidence. That’s why there can be such uncertainty about a case even after extensive testing.
http://www.guidetopsychology.com/testing.htm


Particularly with regard to test validity, the MBTI appears to be lacking. It does not accurately measure what it purports to be measuring. In addition, its reliability, consistency, is relatively low.

Quote:

One of the most popular personality tests in the world is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a psychological-assessment system based on the work of psychologist Carl Jung. Two and a half million Americans a year take the Myers-Briggs. Eighty-nine companies out of the US Fortune 100 make use of it, for recruitment and selection or to help employees understand themselves or their co-workers.

The MBTI asks the candidate to answer a series of ‘forced-choice’ questions, where one choice identifies you as belonging to one of four paired traits. The basic test takes twenty minutes, and at the end you are presented with a precise, multi-dimensional summary of your personality. The MBTI test classifies people into types based on 4 bi-polar dimensions;

Extraversion-Introversion (E-I)
Distinguishes a preference for focusing attention on, and drawing energy from, the outer world of people and things versus the inner world of ideas and impressions.

Sensing-INtuition (S-N)
Distinguishes a preference for gathering data directly through the senses as facts, details, and precedents (Sensing) versus indirectly as relationships, patterns, and possibilities (INtuition).

Thinking-Feeling (T-F)
Distinguishes a preference for deciding via objective, impersonal logic (Thinking) versus subjective, person-centered values (Feeling).

Judging-Perceiving (J-P)
Distinguishes an outward preference for having things planned and organized (Judging) versus a flexible style based more on staying open to options than deciding (Perceiving).

There are 16 distinct personality types, so someone may be classed as ESFP or INTJ, or some other combination. This is obviously a different way of looking at personality from the big 5 personality trait theory of Costa & McCrae.

Psychologists judge the worth of any personality test by two basic criteria: validity and reliability. Validity indicates that a test measures what it says it measures and reliability indicates that a test delivers consistent results.

Validity of MBTI
The validity of a test estimates how well the test measures what it purports to measure. There are two types of validity that should be considered:

Construct validity - does the MBTI relate to other scales measuring similar concepts?

Criterion-related validity - does the MBTI predict specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations or job performance?

The National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from over 20 MBTI research studies and concluded that only the Intraversion-Extroversion scale has adequate construct validity. That is high correlations with comparable scales of other tests and low correlations with tests designed to assess different concepts. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. No mention was made in this review about the J-P scale.

Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: ‘at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs’, the very thing that it is most often used for.

Reliability of MBTI
Reliability is the degree of consistency with which a test measures what it is said to measure. Test length greatly affects reliability with longer tests tending to be more reliable. Reliability can be measured using reliability coefficients, and for short personality tests these should be in the range 0.70 to 0.80. The MBTI reports reliability coefficients for its four scales on general population
samples in the ranges from 0.61 to 0.87.

The practical effect of this is that even though the MBTI claims to reveal a subjects’ inborn, unchanging personality type, as many as 75% of test takers are assigned a different type when they take the Myers-Briggs a second time.

Academic psychologists and commercial test providers have a tendency to put a different ‘spin’ on how valid and reliable these personality questionnaires are, with the test providers unsurprisingly ‘talking up’ both validity and reliability.

The following quotes are from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State University (NMSU).

“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than Astrology”

“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments, hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind of their co-workers.”

Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.

"[Tests] trivialize human behavior by assuming that (fake) attitudes predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no explanations for behavior beyond the circular proposition that behavior is caused by traits which are inferred from behavior,".

"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with vested interests in their continued use,"

http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm







Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 09:19 am
Hi ebrown,
You ask what scientifically testable way one has to assess so-called "Psychometric Instruments" and I agree there isn't any. I've had to put up with similar gobbledygook as a teacher because the Multiple Intelligence (MI) drivel simply by replacing one set of nonsense with another.
Quote:
The theory of multiple intelligences was proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 to more accurately define the concept of intelligence and to address the question whether methods which claim to measure intelligence (or aspects thereof) are truly scientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 09:43 am
I've had to put up with similar gobbledygook as a teacher because the Multiple Intelligence (MI) drivel simply replaces one set of nonsense with another.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 10:27 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
Measurement is a bitch.

No it is not. Measurement is a part of objective science. If there is something worthwhile to measure, then measuring it is not that difficult.

Why do you insist on demonstrating your ignorance? Do you know how many things in the universe are worthwhile to measure, but getting an accurate measurement of them is extremely difficult?

So, is this an error on your part, or are you being deliberately misleading again?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 10:46 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Why do you insist on demonstrating your ignorance? Do you know how many things in the universe are worthwhile to measure, but getting an accurate measurement of them is extremely difficult?


DrewDad, the personal attacks are little uncalled for. (I am wondering if my you are putting my ignorance in the category of things worthwhile to measure.)

I would be interested in discussing an example of something worthwhile, but difficult, to measure. It seems to me this is the question of science versus pseudo-science.

I think that once you use science sounding words and phrases like "validity" and "useful to predict behavior" you cross the line into things that can and should be scientifically tested.

Do you have any other examples of things that you think are worth testing, but difficult to test?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 10:57 am
@ebrown p,
Gravitational constant
Quote:
The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until 1798 " 71 years after Newton's death

Speed of light
Rest mass of decaying particles
Detecting neutrinos
Knowing the actual rate of fusion going on in the Sun
How about measuring the temperature of the Earth? Determining if global warming is happening? If so, is it caused by man?

Hell, even the rate at which some hole is producing crude oil.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 10:58 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
DrewDad, the personal attacks are little uncalled for.

It's only an attack if it's not true....
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 11:07 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
I would be interested in discussing an example of something worthwhile, but difficult, to measure. It seems to me this is the question of science versus pseudo-science.

Fair enough. Then please tell me the mass of the Higgs Boson on a budget of less than, say, a million dollars. That's physics. We agree physics is a real science. The Higgs Boson is an important part of the standard model of particle physics. Accordingly, if measuring worthwhile things is "not that difficult", measuring the mass of the Higgs Boson shouldn't cost dozens of billions of dollars. (And even that isn't for sure: we haven't measured it yet.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

I saw the girl who isn't there.... - Question by boomerang
Mentally ill. - Discussion by sometime sun
Adulthood Life Questions - Question by inkluv99
Trolls represent human's basic nature - Discussion by omaniac
weird dream - Discussion by void123
Is being too strong a weakness? - Question by ur2cdanger1
Zombies Existence - Discussion by RisingToShine
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 06:51:06