Reply
Thread Tools
Is the MBTI a pseudoscience? None
Old 02-15-2009, 11:50 PM   #26
Lucid
Core Member [147%]
Embrace entropy.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,900
 

  Originally Posted by nacht
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
All models are wrong, but some are useful. The question isn't "whether its pseudoscience," the question is "is it useful?"

I'd say that part of the definition of a pseudo science is that it is not useful in the ways it claims to be.

Lucid is offline
Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2009, 11:57 PM   #27
nacht
Core Member [140%]
"A group of INTJs is an argument."
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,622
 

  Originally Posted by Lucid
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'd say that part of the definition of a pseudo science is that it is not useful in the ways it claims to be.

I would argue that there are several things that are unquestionably pseudoscience that are still useful in their claimed areas (sometimes purely by chance). Homepathy is a good example of this--it is apparently completely useless when compared against placebo, but it occasionally works exceedingly well as a placebo.

We also run into problems trying to define it as "not working in the way that it claims," since that could be said until fairly recently of bismuth compounds for ulcers and anti-dandruff shampoos.

nacht is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2009, 11:59 PM   #28
Lucid
Core Member [147%]
Embrace entropy.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,900
 

  Originally Posted by nacht
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I would argue that there are several things that are unquestionably pseudoscience that are still useful in their claimed areas (sometimes purely by chance). Homepathy is a good example of this--it is apparently completely useless when compared against placebo, but it occasionally works exceedingly well as a placebo.

I would say that one of the definitions of a pseudo science is that it is not useful in the ways it claims to be. Homeopathy claims to be effective in ways that a placebo are not. And it is ultimately useless in treating illnesses or issues that a placebo will not affect.

But we digress.

Lucid is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 12:01 AM   #29
firebee
Core Member [117%]
will you allow dokken to have its way with your chicken?
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,707
 

  Originally Posted by Lucid
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'd say that part of the definition of a pseudo science is that it is not useful in the ways it claims to be.

Is that a useful definition then?

I think you mean something a bit different, but it seems situation normal to me to discover a thing and come up with a way of describing it that on later examination turns out to be superfluous -- or to claim that something balances your spleen, but really it turns out you're just feeling more energy because you're not in constant mild pain
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

(Wheeeeee... we go 'round on the merry-go-round.)

firebee is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 12:07 AM   #30
Lucid
Core Member [147%]
Embrace entropy.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,900
 

  Originally Posted by firebee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Is that a useful definition then?

I think you mean something a bit different

Allow me to clarify:

Tarot is a pseudo science. I use that term to describe it because it claims to divine the future and does not.
However, I was given a deck of tarot cards when I was 13 and when I was a teenager I used to do tarot readings. As I've gotten older I stopped believing in such things. But I still have the deck and sometimes take it out if I want to get my thoughts on a particular topic in order, or just for fun. It does still have a use - but because it cannot do what it is 'supposed' to do it's a pseudo science.

And yes, I'd say that it is a useful definition. I'm not using the term 'pseudo science' to mean 'totally invalid and useless for everything.' A gun that is out of bullets is useless for shooting people, but it can still make a dandy blunt object.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lucid is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 12:25 AM   #31
firebee
Core Member [117%]
will you allow dokken to have its way with your chicken?
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,707
 

  Originally Posted by Lucid
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tarot is a pseudo science. I use that term to describe it because it claims to divine the future and does not.
However, I was given a deck of tarot cards when I was 13 and when I was a teenager I used to do tarot readings. As I've gotten older I stopped believing in such things. But I still have the deck and sometimes take it out if I want to get my thoughts on a particular topic in order, or just for fun. It does still have a use - but because it cannot do what it is 'supposed' to do it's a pseudo science.

Hmm, I'm still not quite seeing where the label provides a useful distinction. It strikes me as a subtype of Experiment: FAIL. And then you get into the question of who is actually claiming what works and why and about what... Some folks claim that tarot taps into the mystical woo-woo, and you don't see any evidence for that. Some people claim that tarot taps into subtle perception, and that you can predict the future from the greater understanding of the present..?

I guess I'd say that I don't see a great need for a special label for "failed experiment that smells of 50 different kinds of incense"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

firebee is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 01:28 AM   #32
ProgFusionRoman
Member [04%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 198
 
I think the most important points to understand when interpreting these defined personality types is the "context" of the types themselves which I have defined by the way the information is gathered, the construct used to define the types (4 letters) and the way the information is interpreted.

Another is to define the context of "the scientific method" as this can be different from one field to the next.

My method below is a rough first draft attempt to relate these two.

1. Define the question - are there distinct "personality types"?
2. Gather information and resources (observe) - hmm...seems to be
3. Form hypothesis - Jung did this first then MB then Keirsey.
4. Perform experiment and collect data - apparently millions take the test a year?
5. Analyze data - statistics done in terms of how much % are INTJ etc. I am unware of testing the "errors" or interviewing people for what they disagree with about the test or if and what "interview" questions are done etc to draw further conclusions.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - eg Keirsey's Temperament Sorter, the characteristics of each type, relationship and suitable job info must also have had questions asked - unware of this also.
7. Publish results - has this been done. Is it in a journal? I am unware of it.
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) - has anyone verified it? I am unware of it?


Can anyone answer 4 to 8 above?
ProgFusionRoman is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2009, 08:59 AM   #33
Lucid
Core Member [147%]
Embrace entropy.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,900
 

  Originally Posted by firebee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hmm, I'm still not quite seeing where the label provides a useful distinction. It strikes me as a subtype of Experiment: FAIL. And then you get into the question of who is actually claiming what works and why and about what... Some folks claim that tarot taps into the mystical woo-woo, and you don't see any evidence for that. Some people claim that tarot taps into subtle perception, and that you can predict the future from the greater understanding of the present..?

I guess I'd say that I don't see a great need for a special label for "failed experiment that smells of 50 different kinds of incense"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

If you don't see a distinction between something that does what it claims and something that doesn't then I have a tinfoil hat that will make you 6 times smarter than you are. Just $299.95. I accept all major credit cards.

If your objection is that you think tarot cards can predict the future, that's a discussion for a different subforum.

Lucid is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2009, 09:59 PM   #34
RBM
Core Member [223%]
My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. - J. B. S. Haldane
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,948
 

  Originally Posted by Alienated
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Types only exist whilst we continue to think inside the box.

Yup, there are more encompassing larger boxes to be broke out into.

RBM is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2009, 04:32 AM   #35
ShiftyChica
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2
 
I am new here, and though I was quite interested to find this forum, I am slightly uncomfortable with much of what I've read. I think of MBTI as a way of categorizing people, especially with regard to styles of communication. Our types can change throughout our lives, but we learn about them so that we may understand ourselves better, and use this understanding to improve the way we relate to others.

However, from reading the posts here, it seems that many people treat MBTI as one would astrology or another pseudoscience, using their types to define themselves, saying, "I am this way because of my type," as one might do for one's astrological sign. It seems to me that the MBTI is there to help describe ourselves--it hasn't made us who we are. This is perhaps a fine, but important, difference, one that helps distinguish MBTI from a pseudoscience.
ShiftyChica is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2009, 05:08 PM   #36
More Tea
Member [05%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 204
 
I probably would not go so far as to describe the MBTI as a pseudoscience, but it's not exactly a science either. As mentioned earlier, the Forer effect comes into play. Plus, if the result you get does not fit the first time, you get to look at other possible results, hunting around for the "fit." That's sort of fun, yes. But it is hardly science.

Now, I think the big issue here is peer review. I'm not a psychologist, so someone can correct me here, but there do not seem to be a huge number of peer-reviewed articles floating around out there confirming the "lasting wisdom" of the MBTI. If anything, it's likely to get slammed, along with the MMPI II and other misapplied testing instruments.

That said, the MBTI can still be a useful tool for self-analysis and even psychological growth. It gives us a model to work with and expound upon. It raises ideas that we might not have considered and can make interpersonal relationships easier by providing some sort of comprehensive structure (e.g., my mother-in-law isn't *really* barking mad; she's just ESFJ!).

Finally, I can't help but notice that MBTI forums attract interesting, diverting discussions, so in that aspect, it "works" for my purposes.
More Tea is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 09:46 AM   #37
gestalt
Veteran Member [92%]
Study extensively, inquire carefully, ponder thoroughly, sift clearly, and practice earnestly. --Zhu Xi.
MBTI: xNTx
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,713
 
From
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.


Jung’s evidence, from his clinical observations, is merely anecdotal. He talks about the extravert and the introvert as types. He also talks about the thinking type, the feeling type, the sensation type, and the intuition type. His evidence for his claims is not based on any controlled studies. He said he “probably would have done them” if he had had the means (315). But as it was, he says, “I had to content myself with the observation of facts” (315).

Jung seems to have realized the limitations of his work and may not have approved of the MBTI had he lived to see it developed in his name. “My scheme of typology,” he noted, “is only a scheme of orientation. There is such a factor as introversion, there is such a factor as extraversion. The classification of individuals means nothing, nothing at all. It is only the instrumentarium for the practical psychologist to explain for instance, the husband to a wife or vice versa” (305).

However, his typology seems to imply that science is just a point of view and that using intuition is just as valid a way of seeing and understanding the world and ourselves as is careful observation under controlled conditions. Never mind that that is the only way to systematically minimize self-deception or prevent identifying causes where there are none.

Isabel Briggs Myers made similar mistakes:

In describing the writing of the Manual, she mentioned that she considered the criticisms a thinker would make, and then directed her own thinking to find an answer. An extravert to whom she was speaking said that if he wanted to know the criticisms of thinkers, he would not look into his own head. He would go find some thinkers, and ask them. Isabel looked startled, and then amused.*

This anecdote typifies the dangers of self-validation. To think that you can anticipate and characterize criticisms of your views fairly and accurately is arrogant and unintelligent, even if it is typical of your personality type. Others will see things you don’t. It is too easy to create straw men instead of facing up to the strongest challenges that can be made against your position. It is not because of type that one should send out one’s views for critical appraisal by others. It is the only way to be open-minded and complete in one’s thinking. To suggest that only people of a certain type can be open-minded or concerned with completeness is to encourage sloppy and imprecise thinking.


...

Providing personality tests and profiles has become a kind of entertainment on the Internet.

...

For example, to support his notion that "intuitive types very often do not perceive by their eyes or by their ears, they perceive by intuition" (308), Jung tells a story about a patient. She had a nine a.m. appointment and said to Jung: "you must have seen somebody at eight o'clock." She tells him she knows this because "I just had a hunch that there must have been a gentleman with you this morning." She knows it was a gentleman, she says, because "I just had the impression, the atmosphere was just like a gentleman was here." Jung seems uninterested in critically examining her claims. The anecdote seems to support his picture of the intuitive type. He doesn't consider that she may have seen the gentleman leave but failed to mention this to Jung, perhaps to impress him with her power of intuition. Jung notes that the room smelled of tobacco smoke and there was a half-smoked cigar in an ash tray "under her nose." Jung claims she didn't see it. He doesn't even consider that she may have seen it and smelled the stench of the cigar but did not call attention to it.

The reason scientists do controlled studies rather than rely solely on their clinical observations and memories as Jung did is because it is easy to deceive ourselves and fit the data to our hypotheses and theories. Another Jungian anecdote will help exemplify this point. A male "sensation type" and a female "intuitive type" were in a boat on a lake. They were watching birds dive after fish. According to Jung, "they began to bet who would be the first to see the bird [when it emerged from the water]. Now you would think that the one who observes reality very carefully--the sensation type--would of course win out. Not at all. The woman won the bet completely. She was beating him on all points, because by intuition she knew it beforehand" (306-307, emphasis added). One couple, one try. That's it. No more evidence is needed. The truth is that Jung doesn't know any more than I do why the woman was better at the game than the man. Perhaps the man lost on purpose as part of a misguided plan to seduce the woman. Who knows? But Jung is clearly begging the question with this and most of his other "observations of facts," as he calls these stories.

Some of his anecdotes may have been entirely fictional. For example, to support his notions of intuition and synchronicity, he says:

For instance, I speak of a red car and at that moment a red car comes along. I hadn't seen it, it was impossible because it was behind the building until just this moment when the red car appears. Now this seems mere chance. Yet the Rhine experiments [on ESP] proves that these cases are not mere chance. Of course many of these things are occurrences to which we cannot apply such an argument, otherwise we would be superstitious. We can't say, "This car has appeared because some remarks had been made about a red car. It is a miracle that the red car appears." It is not, it is chance, just chance. But these "chances" happen more often than chance allows, and that shows there is something behind it (315, emphasis added).

Again, had Jung an understanding of statistics he would know that what he thinks happens more often than chance allows, in fact happens in accordance with what chance not only allows but also expects.





Pretty amusing that the MBTI isn't based on science, only observation.
GOGO division of labor, pigeon-holing people since god knows when.

EDIT: Feel free to move this over to the "Personality Theories" subforum.
gestalt is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 10:44 AM   #38
Feral
Veteran Member [64%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,575
 
I didn't bother reading the whole thing, but...

All science is based on observation.
We observe how things are affected by other things, and then compare it to how it affects another.

And I wouldn't say it's completely inaccurate. If it was, people wouldn't be able to identify with the results, and wouldn't seek others of the same, and we likely wouldn't be here at all. Of course in most cases a few things are going to be off, we aren't made from cookie cutters. After taking the test several times, I went and read through the other profiles, and noticed that I wasn't remotely close to most of them. The description I got was pretty damn accurate for myself.
Feral is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 10:45 AM   #39
JohnDoe
Core Member [149%]
MBTI: INFJ
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,981
 
Its about as accurate as most of sociology or psychology. Which is to say not very.
JohnDoe is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 11:06 AM   #40
gestalt
Veteran Member [92%]
Study extensively, inquire carefully, ponder thoroughly, sift clearly, and practice earnestly. --Zhu Xi.
MBTI: xNTx
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,713
 
Yeah. I sort of see it as a nice starting point for mental masturbation.
gestalt is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 11:27 AM   #41
ElstonGunn
Core Member [167%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,706
 
The fact that a theory lacks a scientific background doesn't necessarily invalidate it. Also, the fact that a lack of scientific theory doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory doesn't necessarily make it valid, either.

Unless there are some good studies out there about MBTI's validity, then the scientific judge doesn't have anything conclusive to say about it. Maybe it's valid, maybe it's not. You'd have to look at it under controlled conditions to make that call, or else you'd be making the same mistakes that Jung made. As it stands, all you can say is "it seems" or "I think," which puts the whole thing into the subjective realm, along with art and philosophy, rather than the objective realm of chemistry and math, for example.

Personally, I think MBTI is mostly bogus as anything other than a vague set of stereotypes that you can use to get a quick and unguaranteed (and almost even "cheap") idea of what people are like. Each type has huge overlaps with other types, so it's hard to pinpoint anything. And type tells you about how a person thinks-- behavior isn't directly involved in any assured way, so you can't look at how a person acts and expect to be able to decipher their type with high levels of accuracy.
ElstonGunn is online
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 11:39 AM   #42
gestalt
Veteran Member [92%]
Study extensively, inquire carefully, ponder thoroughly, sift clearly, and practice earnestly. --Zhu Xi.
MBTI: xNTx
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,713
 

  Originally Posted by ElstonGunn
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Also, the fact that a lack of scientific theory doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory doesn't necessarily make it valid, either.

Unless there are some good studies out there about MBTI's validity, then the scientific judge doesn't have anything conclusive to say about it.


The language in the websites that describe MBTI personality types is chock-full of truisms. You know else where else truisms are found? Astrology and fortune-teller readings. Nice. I too like being fooled once in a while.

How's that for being scientific?

Human beings are tribal, aggressive, and territorial. I find it interesting in the contextual framework of a forum designed around the MBTI, that we have conversations like "INTJ vs. INTP" and so forth. This identifying strongly with the categories of the MBTI is merely another example of the very old instinct to band/group up with others you perceive to be similar so you can get your way better. "We're INTJ and we think better" is the prevalent modus operandi. "INTJ Forum: Masterminds, Innovators, Villians, Virgins." Aptly stated; sweeping, overstated words. A bit sociopathic. I wonder if it is the same on the other psychology forums...We should perform a stealth psych take-over operation of them.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


EDIT: Just noticed that someone merged my new thread about this with another, apparently previously created thread back in February. Good to know a lot of us are thinking along similar lines (thus the astrology/fortune redundancy in my post).

gestalt is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 03:14 PM   #43
dogwoodlover
Member [47%]
 
MBTI: ISTP
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,913
 
Pardon me if I'm being redundant (in terms of what others have already said).

I think the MBTI is empirical in the sense that it largely corresponds with observed behaviors in most individuals. Hence, I think it is possible to a limited extent, given proper knowledge of a situation, to predict differences in outcome between major life decisions about to be made by an INTJ, versus say an ENFJ.

That said, I am inclined to think that most of social science can be classified as "soft science" (in contrast to the natural, "hard" sciences), and the Jungian/MBTI personality theory falls under this category as well. Sure, there are theories in social science which are much more "scientifically rigorous" and backed up by more data than the MBTI, which suggests that there is certainly a significant degree of imprecision in the MBTI. However, it nonetheless is a useful tool for describing individual patterns and behaviors (hence us all being here), and serves well in cases of individuals attempting to "know thyselves" and develop their capacities.

It is certainly of more scientific merit than say astrology, because it bases its findings and conclusions on observation, regardless of its "scientific purity" in doing so.
dogwoodlover is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 03:38 PM   #44
Keekiri
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
 
Here's how I see it. The personality test basically asks you "Are you introverted?" and you say Yay or Nay. Then, it tells you that you're introverted. We are the way we are because it's what we prefer to make of ourselves, esincially, we make the personality and it dosn't make us. (That's why there's always an inbetween variation avalible for those who fall in the cracks) Personality tests simply categorize us (We all start our nearly the same way, therefore the amazing thing is not that we're so alike, but that we're so different) and describe us based on what we "tell" it about ourselves. Many will take these tests and the result is merely what they WISH they were.
Keekiri is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 03:48 PM   #45
gestalt
Veteran Member [92%]
Study extensively, inquire carefully, ponder thoroughly, sift clearly, and practice earnestly. --Zhu Xi.
MBTI: xNTx
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,713
 
Absolutely. For example, I have a fear of someone knowing more about me than I know myself. I detest the idea of someone manipulating or "playing" me. I think most people have this fear. It is my personal belief that fear is directly expressed in the INTJ classification. The reason why INTJ's are so rare (~2% of the population) is because their responses show an intuitive understanding of the underlying psychological assessment technique/system of the MBTI. This can be attributed to self-awareness. Conclusion: INTJ's are more self-aware and by definition resist classification. "Gaming the test" is the assumption, as dogwoodlover and Keekiri allude to.

Is anyone here an actual MBTI expert and able to analyze on a question-by-question basis the fundamental implications of the assessment? Perhaps I'm just looking for where folks are getting these detailed percentages of the different psychological qualities/dichotomies in the MBTI.
gestalt is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 04:07 PM   #46
jhbowden79
Member [05%]
 
MBTI: ENTJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 219
 
"Is the MBTI a pseudoscience?"

The answer is: Yes, but it is fun anyway.
jhbowden79 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 04:58 PM   #47
JohnDoe
Core Member [149%]
MBTI: INFJ
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,981
 

  Originally Posted by ProgFusionRoman
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think the most important points to understand when interpreting these defined personality types is the "context" of the types themselves which I have defined by the way the information is gathered, the construct used to define the types (4 letters) and the way the information is interpreted.

Another is to define the context of "the scientific method" as this can be different from one field to the next.

My method below is a rough first draft attempt to relate these two.

1. Define the question - are there distinct "personality types"?
2. Gather information and resources (observe) - hmm...seems to be
3. Form hypothesis - Jung did this first then MB then Keirsey.
4. Perform experiment and collect data - apparently millions take the test a year?
5. Analyze data - statistics done in terms of how much % are INTJ etc. I am unware of testing the "errors" or interviewing people for what they disagree with about the test or if and what "interview" questions are done etc to draw further conclusions.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - eg Keirsey's Temperament Sorter, the characteristics of each type, relationship and suitable job info must also have had questions asked - unware of this also.
7. Publish results - has this been done. Is it in a journal? I am unware of it.
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) - has anyone verified it? I am unware of it?


Can anyone answer 4 to 8 above?

I don't think its untestable -- You could test some "properties" of certain types statistically by asking enough people their opinion of a person. But it hasn't been tested, so until then its a pseudoscience. I mean fundamentally the key question is not if S vs N actually exists, its if the descriptions of an INTJ meet most peoples observations of an INTJ.

JohnDoe is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 05:48 PM   #48
azelismia
Core Member [166%]
Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
MBTI: INTj
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,657
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but
MBTI = Pseudo Science (it's in the realm of psychology and no hard testing has ever been done to validate the various theories especially when you go beyond the basic four types of Nt Sp SJ and NF
Astrology= Parlour game. there is nothing to validify this has any solidity in the world at all and forers effect is clear.
religion= Belief System of faith.

These things are not related and cannot be compared.
azelismia is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 05:52 PM   #49
gestalt
Veteran Member [92%]
Study extensively, inquire carefully, ponder thoroughly, sift clearly, and practice earnestly. --Zhu Xi.
MBTI: xNTx
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,713
 
Sure they can, if you look at them all together.


(I just did it with that sentence, truisms are common to all three)

Reading, it am good.
gestalt is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 07:50 PM   #50
alice
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19
 

  Originally Posted by Valiyn
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
psychology doesn't follow the scientific method--and I might be mistaken about this--but isn't if it follows the scientific method the deciding factor in if it is a science or pseudoscience?

Well, when I was in grad school for behavioral science/psychology, we had to follow the scientific method. We had a class on it. But the degree I got was more research & academic oriented.

I'm not sure I could say some popular branches of psychology, such as psychoanalysis (think Freud) follow the scientific method. I would have to guess not, just from what I know.

alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.