The Rush To Be Right

I'll try to be a more predictable ISTJ next time.

So tell me all about the MBTI.
 
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a model used to explain different personality types. Used by psychologists, educators, corporate headhunters, employers etc..
I find it especially helpful in learning about others and how best to communicate with them.
I was introduced to it while taking a few college courses some years back. My wife has used it for so many years as a school admin/counselor that she can usually ascertain someones type from even a short conversation.
 
Paladin said:
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a model used to explain different personality types. Used by psychologists, educators, corporate headhunters, employers etc..
I find it especially helpful in learning about others and how best to communicate with them.
I was introduced to it while taking a few college courses some years back. My wife has used it for so many years as a school admin/counselor that she can usually ascertain someones type from even a short conversation.
Click to expand...
Interesting. It helps to conveniently organize our world and see people as types, I suppose. My feeling is that humans are ultimately unknowable.
 
Kind of a coincidence. Lat week I was on the phone with someone and they were sure I was a certain personality type. They were confident they had made an important discovery about who and what I was and suggested I check out the assessment used to classify people - it was on the Internets.

I asked who developed the test. This person I was talking with checked with someone else who was there with them who was also convinced this was a very valid and useful assessment because psychologists had developed it.

Later I did a Google search. Turns out the assessment was an Internet joke and didn't have a single validity study in the professional literature. Talk about a need for certainty. Pretty silly, huh?
 
Quite. The MBTI is a good tool, but I wouldn't use a hammer where a screwdriver was needed.
 
Paladin said:
My wife has used it for so many years as a school admin/counselor that she can usually ascertain someones type from even a short conversation.
Click to expand...

That's a neat trick, I would have thought they sort of shaded into one another? Although I do remember someone trying to assertain my partner's star sign (the person had only just met us) and she dismissed me with a casual wave of the hand and said "oh you're a bloody Pisces" like it wasn't even up for debate.

She was right.

I still like to remain sceptical of astrology...

s.
 
Netti-Netti said:
The only problem I see with the sentiment is that it sidesteps the importance of evidence in inquiry and ignores the possibility for closure on at least those assertions that are subject to hypothesis testing and cross-validation. In other words, some things ARE knoweable and there may be no practical reason to hide behind a smokescreen of ambiguity or avoid taking a few steps to find evidence that might not settle the issue, but will shed some light on it.

The problem may not be entirely epistemic. It might have more to do with the fact that we have to take the dog for a walk and laundry to do. We're spread too thin to get to the bottom of the questions that concern us and so we just kinda make do with a few convenient "answers."
Click to expand...


Perhaps we should treat all so-called “knowledge” as always provisional? Our minds create our world from the data that comes in from our senses. Thus mind makes knowledge, it is not something “out there”. So we create individual illusions, call them "right" and then defend them to protect our ego.

I remember at high school the physics teacher telling us that it was known that the smallest indivisible particles were protons, neutrons and electrons…

One of my rather peculiar diversions is browsing through old reference books and encyclopaedias in junk / antique shops to find facts that were facts only a few decades ago but sadly are no longer facts. :eek:

s.
 
Netti-Netti said:
In other words, some things ARE knoweable
Click to expand...
Netti-Netti said:
My feeling is that humans are ultimately unknowable.
Click to expand...
It would seem to me maybe that as humans are part of the matrix that is the universe, then I can’t quite get these two sentiments together. Can they be reconciled?

s.
 
Snoopy said:
It would seem to me maybe that as humans are part of the matrix that is the universe, then I can’t quite get these two sentiments together. Can they be reconciled?
Click to expand...
The fact that the Mysteries are ultimately unknowable should not stop us from exploring.

Snoopy said:
I remember at high school the physics teacher telling us that it was known that the smallest indivisible particles were protons, neutrons and electrons…

One of my rather peculiar diversions is browsing through old reference books and encyclopaedias in junk / antique shops to find facts that were facts only a few decades ago but sadly are no longer facts.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to try to keep up!
 
Netti-Netti said:
In other words, some things ARE knoweable
Click to expand...
Netti-Netti said:
My feeling is that humans are ultimately unknowable.
Click to expand...
Snoopy said:
It would seem to me maybe that as humans are part of the matrix that is the universe, then I can’t quite get these two sentiments together. Can they be reconciled?
Click to expand...
I suggest we'll find the answer in the wise words of former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld...

There are known knowns.
These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know.

Ahhhh yes. Enlightening indeed.
 
:D
Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.
There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.
~Chuang Tzu, Discussion on Making All Things Equal​
 
Alex P said:
And I don't know wether you've been drinking or wether you haven't. :p
Click to expand...
Chuang Tzu said:
Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.
Click to expand...


But, can you know thyself? ;)
 
“What do you seek?”, asked Bodhidharma.

“Peace of mind”, replied Hui-K’o.

“Show me this mind of yours”, said Bodhidharma, “and I will pacify it”.

“But when I seek my mind, I cannot find it”, was the reply.

“THERE!” , said Bodhidharma, “I have pacified your mind!”

“YES!”, said Hui-K’o, and laughed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top