|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
 Posted - 05/10/2002 : 22:23:41 [Permalink]
|
Hi Everyone,
I am new to this forum, although I used to hang out at a different skeptic forum that I posted on quite a bit. It got a bit repetitive, as religious posters would only show up every once and a while, and get systematically flamed out by the skeptics who would then pat themselves on the back for their "logical" irradiation of the religious scourge (this attitude also seems prevalent here if this posts opening voting results are accurate.)
Anyways, back on topic. It seems most people here think religion and science are “conflicting” or “separate”, and from my previous experience on forums, I would guess they proudly base this opinion on “logic”. The question I have is, are we logical by choice? Are the religious posters poorly educated and dumb, or are they simply a group of people that prefer the “feeling” of something, over cold logic.
I have been reading some interesting books lately on Keirsey temperament sorting, which, although not an exact science, seems about as scientific and well proven as human sciences get, and rings true to me as a starting point for sorting personality types and their tendencies. (I was introduced to Keirsey through the recommendation of a friend who is a very bright career counselor. He thought it might help me understand my employees and find logical ways of keeping them interested and productive even though they do not approach problems and work in the same way that I do). Interesting thing is, after quite a bit of reading it seems that there are only a few types of personalities that would hang out in a skeptic forum, and distinct set of other types that would tend to follow religion whole-heartedly no matter how illogical. Oh, and Keirsey also believes that we are born with a temperament and do not choose it.
Is anybody here interested in going through an online questionnaire and then posting their personality type? (http://www.advisorteam.com/user/ktsintro1.asp) These forums seem like a logical meeting place for the “NT” type, and I am curious if these forums are just another example of people with a certain “type” of intelligence, getting together to agree with each other and find comfort in the presence of others cut from the same cloth.
I am an “NT”, ENTJ to be specific.
Any takers?
Mike.
|
 |
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 07:23:39 [Permalink]
|
Spamorama> “as religious posters would only show up every once and a while, and get systematically flamed out by the skeptics who would then pat themselves on the back for their "logical" irradiation of the religious scourge (this attitude also seems prevalent here if this posts opening voting results are accurate.)”
How come, that when people view religion and science as conflicting worlds, then we're dealing with the self-righteous, who pad themselves on their backs?
I assume you would not for a second consider that it was correct? That science and religion are conflicting worlds?
“The question I have is, are we logical by choice? Are the religious posters poorly educated and dumb, or are they simply a group of people that prefer the “feeling” of something, over cold logic.”
You think you can feel a scientific theory? Should a scinetific theory be discarded, because it “feels” wrong?
“I have been reading some interesting books lately on Keirsey temperament sorting, which, although not an exact science.”
But it feels right?
“Interesting thing is, after quite a bit of reading it seems that there are only a few types of personalities that would hang out in a skeptic forum, and distinct set of other types that would tend to follow religion whole-heartedly no matter how illogical. “
So it has nothing to do with being raised in a religious environment?
And I'm not willing to give my e-mail to a temperament sorter. What is your relationship with Kiersey AdvisorTeam?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 13:26:10 [Permalink]
|
I don't consider those types of tests much more scientific then horoscopes.
Humans are much to complex to be easily put into twelve or sixteen different categories. The results are usually so vague that everyone can identifie with almost any of them. They also fail to give back negative results. The descriptions are always in a positive light and you never get back anything along the lines of: you are boring or you are an idiot.
The whole sorting is biased and extremly general.
Maybe I am biased about those test because they don't work very well for me. Maybe most people are simple enogh for those test to accurately categorize them and I am just an exception. But I kind of doubt that I am so special.
Btw. My results (after giving a wrong email address) in the questionary came back as Guardian. The description there would fit for almost everyone. Later I found a German translation of the test and it came back as a Rational/Mastermind INTJ. I doubt I am either of those.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 15:37:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I used to hang out at a different skeptic forum that I posted on quite a bit. It got a bit repetitive, as religious posters would only show up every once and a while, and get systematically flamed out by the skeptics who would then pat themselves on the back for their "logical" irradiation of the religious scourge (this attitude also seems prevalent here if this posts opening voting results are accurate.)
I suggest you read more posts...
quote:
Is anybody here interested in going through an online questionnaire and then posting their personality type? (http://www.advisorteam.com/user/ktsintro1.asp) These forums seem like a logical meeting place for the “NT” type, and I am curious if these forums are just another example of people with a certain “type” of intelligence, getting together to agree with each other and find comfort in the presence of others cut from the same cloth.
I don't think it's too surprising that a skeptic forum attracts skeptics. Cut from the same cloth? Again, I suggest you read more posts.
Anyhow, I went to the site and took the personality test. I came up an Artisan. One of four of the personality types. Each type is divided up into four more specific types. But you can't know exactly which one you are until you fork over about fifteen dollars. For this you get a ten page report.
The four types are Artisan, Guardian, Rantionals and Idealists. I took the test a few times to see if I could tweak the answers to get the personality type I wanted. I was able to get Guardian and Idealist results. Try as I might, I just couldn't come up with the responses that would have forced a Rationalist type. Hmmmm...
In all categories there were personality traits that I would want to identify myself with. For example:
"Artisans pride themselves on being unconventional, bold, and spontaneous. "
"Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic."
"Rationals pride themselves on being ingenious, independent, and strong willed."
"Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working."
And:
"Artisans make playful mates, creative parents, and troubleshooting leaders."
"Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.
"Rationals make reasonable mates, individualizing parents, and strategic leaders."
"Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders."
Naturally, there were traits in all categories I would not want to identify myself with. But generally speaking, I could see myself fitting any one of these categories. Even if it was a surprise to me that I was, for example, a Guardian.
The one I most related to was rationalist, but I couldn't get it to come up for me. I guess I should turn in my skeptics card....
Since I do not know the methodology used to determine the accuracy of this test, I won't go as far as to place personality testing, and this test in particular, along side an astrology reading. Close though.
Personality typing is so soft a science as to be almost useless. There are just too many sampling problems. A bias in the questions, honesty in the answers, environmental factors, and the morning commute can all skew the test results. The result of the test, in any case, will can only confirm what we would like to believe about ourselves, because the questions are asking us what we believe about ourselves. Duh! A simple conversation with a person will probably reveal a lot more about their personality then can be gleaned from a personality test.
My guess is that no matter how honest the test taker is, they will still choose answers that they regard as good traits to have and not necessarily the traits they actually posses. In this way a personality test becomes a sort of wish fulfillment test. "When in charge of others do you tend to be: 1. forgiving and lenient 2. firm and unbending" Oh gee, I think I'll choose firm and unbending. Really? How many firm and unbending types do you think identify themselves that way? My guess is not too many.
In my opinion personality testing belongs more to pop culture than to modern psychology, Jungians not withstanding....
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 15:57:52 [Permalink]
|
By the way spamorama, welcome to the skeptic friends network!
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 17:13:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The one I most related to was rationalist, but I couldn't get it to come up for me. I guess I should turn in my skeptics card....
I have played around a bit with the test and I think that I now understand how it works.
It basically measures four different traits.
The two most important are wether you rely on Sensation or Intuition (S/N) and wether you use Thinking or Feeling (T/F). Rationals are the one, who use Intuition and Thinking (NT).
All you have to do to become a Rational is to answer the questions as if you were intospective and tough, rather than observant and lenient.
I think that by those standards most of us will have problems being classified as Rational because we tend to associate visionaries and imagination with bad things. (Comes from having to listen to idiots defending their unrealistic fantasies with those concepts). The second obstacle to becomming a Rational is that the test appears to be biased towards sentimentalism. It describes emontinal mindset in positive terms like "mercy" and the objective in negative terms like "firm and unbending".
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 19:41:52 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Lars. I guess I can keep my Skeptics card now. In order to become a Rational I had to admit to using "vivid imagination" over "a strong hold on reality." I had to admit to "more often seeing what can only be imagined" over "what is right in front of me." Of course, my head almost exploded in the process....
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 08:17:12 [Permalink]
|
As is usual--all too often?--I find myself in the minority by votingquote:
Same Worlds: Science and religion deal with the same subjects; science may subsume religion.
But how could it be otherwise? Weren't the early religions founded on the first understandings of science, of nature?
The Random House Unabridged begins its definition of "religion" with the wordsquote:
Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe....
Uhhh . . . this sounds an awful lot like "science" to me.
The cosmological theory called "The Big Bang" led to some very deep--and distrusting--questions. These (highly theoretical) questions led, in turn, to proposals of other theories,--without directly attacking the 'grail' of the various underlying "Big Bang" hypotheses.
One of those (seemingly peripheral) theories is called "Super String Theory" and posits a higher number of dimensions than the usual four (--three of space and one of time). The numbers of posited dimensions varies but all subsets of this theory seem to include six "curled up" dimensions, smaller than almost anything we can name.
As I understand things, these six dimensions are everywhere (--despite their being utterly tiny--) since they are orthogonal (perpendicular) to our 3d space. (Abbot's 19th Century book Flatland gives some insight to this notion. Amazon still carries it.)
What goes on in these 6-dimensions--even their very geometry!--seems to be a great mystery. Nonetheless, they are six dimensions (--six dimensions of something  --Who knows?).
I think that those who responded to the third choice are responding from late 19th Century thinking--perhaps very early 20th.
I suspect that we, here in the early 21st, are seeing the realization of "science may subsume religion", as choice #3 says it. 
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 13:06:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Random House Unabridged begins its definition of "religion" with the wordsquote:
Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe....
Uhhh . . . this sounds an awful lot like "science" to me.
(emphasis in the definition is mine).
Science has nothing to do with belief.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 19:21:21 [Permalink]
|
Hi Douglas,
How come, that when people view religion and science as conflicting worlds, then we're dealing with the self-righteous, who pad themselves on their backs?
I assume you would not for a second consider that it was correct? That science and religion are conflicting worlds?
There is nothing in this world that is 100%. The older we get, the clearer this becomes. Self-righeousness is an attitude. It means that the attitudes of others are automatically discarded, because it would make us wrong. Sure, I think that religion and science conflict, but I think that the similarity in them is the fact that they are simply different people finding comfort in different things.
You think you can feel a scientific theory? Should a scinetific theory be discarded, because it “feels” wrong?
There are many important matters in all of our lives, where our experience, or our general knowledge has to be enough to move forward in a decision. Those with the greatest intuition and ability to combine sources of knowledge rule many aspects of our world, both good and bad. Moving on an educated feeling is not always a bad thing, and is often the only way we move at all.
And I'm not willing to give my e-mail to a temperament sorter. What is your relationship with Kiersey AdvisorTeam? [/i].
I have no relationship with anyone involved with Keirsey. I found the free sorter through Google, (Me and my employees did it on paper) and I thought it would be an easy way for people to check out the accuracy of the temperament sorting system for themselves.
Live on the edge, and create a free email address somewhere (Try hotmail, or C4). Why debunk anything so quickly before you even look into it?
Mike
|
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 19:35:37 [Permalink]
|
I don't consider those types of tests much more scientific then horoscopes.
So in other words, there are 5 billion personality types, and the people that hang out on skeptic forums for long periods of time are not even likely to share obvious sets of traits?
Humans are much to complex to be easily put into twelve or sixteen different categories. The results are usually so vague that everyone can identifie with almost any of them. They also fail to give back negative results. The descriptions are always in a positive light and you never get back anything along the lines of: you are boring or you are an idiot.
Pessimism, it would seem, would be a necessary trait on a skepic forum. If you believed things easily because they let you feel optimistic, you would not be here.
The whole sorting is biased and extremly general.
I agree, but then, generalities are about all we get when it comes to trying to understand human behavior. That's why psychology remains a field elusive to exact science. But then, a lack of unbreakable data does not mean that observed generalizations are not valuable.
It is a generalization that "eating high levels of saturated fats are bad for us". There are a tonne of contributing factors including genetics and lifestyle that can make this statement untrue. On the whole, the generalization is still valuable.
Maybe I am biased about those test because they don't work very well for me. Maybe most people are simple enogh for those test to accurately categorize them and I am just an exception. But I kind of doubt that I am so special.
I would guess that the tests do work best with people that have traits that are more definite than others. Some people border on introversion/extroversion, which makes their behavior hard to categorize. Again, the I can't see how the generalizations could prove valuable in furthering understanding.
Btw. My results (after giving a wrong email address) in the questionary came back as Guardian. The description there would fit for almost everyone. Later I found a German translation of the test and it came back as a Rational/Mastermind INTJ. I doubt I am either of those.
Thanks for going through the test, and for your opinions,
Mike.
|
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 23:58:24 [Permalink]
|
Kil the Evil Skeptic:
In order to become a Rational I had to admit to using "vivid imagination" over "a strong hold on reality." I had to admit to "more often seeing what can only be imagined" over "what is right in front of me." Of course, my head almost exploded in the process....
That's a hilarious observation. Funny thing is, I bet most people would say that Einstien was more interested in seeing what could only be imagined..... Oh, and aren't many of the newest scientific theories so wild that the layman can only be taught them through "vivid imagination", and not through their "existing hold on reality"?
Overall, I am finding it very amusing that everyone is were more interested in how the system works and the flaws it could present, than the general truths it might reveal. I think that just about every single person that has posted here has tried to find the problems and not the possible credibility. What if it is 65% accurate? Sure, thats a shitty physics percentage, but those odds are plenty good in Vegas where you win some and lose some. Wait a minute, that sounds like it might also be good odds for employee hiring and maybe planning approach strategies for successful mediation between two sides of an issue...
Oh, and in my defense, just to toss in another two bits, I would have to argue that a system for sorting personality based on asking logically designed questions would have far greater success than astrology. One is based on revealing what we know of ourselves, and the other is based on what the stars predict for us.
Mike
|
|
|
|
spamorama
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 00:00:55 [Permalink]
|
Everyone,
Sorry for the double post and the typo's, the preview function isn't working in my browser...
Mike
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 00:59:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't consider those types of tests much more scientific then horoscopes.
So in other words, there are 5 billion personality types, and the people that hang out on skeptic forums for long periods of time are not even likely to share obvious sets of traits?
I am reculant to claim that we are all individuls and all special in our own way. But I have found that when you look at people indivudaly you find that there is much more variety than those tests allow for.
quote:
Humans are much to complex to be easily put into twelve or sixteen different categories. The results are usually so vague that everyone can identifie with almost any of them. They also fail to give back negative results. The descriptions are always in a positive light and you never get back anything along the lines of: you are boring or you are an idiot.
Pessimism, it would seem, would be a necessary trait on a skepic forum. If you believed things easily because they let you feel optimistic, you would not be here.
The words you are looking for are not optimsm and pessimism, but realism gulibility.
quote:
The whole sorting is biased and extremly general.
I agree, but then, generalities are about all we get when it comes to trying to understand human behavior. That's why psychology remains a field elusive to exact science. But then, a lack of unbreakable data does not mean that observed generalizations are not valuable.
It is a generalization that "eating high levels of saturated fats are bad for us". There are a tonne of contributing factors including genetics and lifestyle that can make this statement untrue. On the whole, the generalization is still valuable.
Generalizations only have any value at all when you are talking about a sufficient number of cases. They are almost worthless when trying to make observations about individuals.
...
About your theory that the people gathered in this fourum are likely to share obvious traits and that such generalizations would give us back any useful informations about the individuals; well lets just try it.
Keirsey Temperament of a Skeptic Friend
Extraversion or Introversion (E/I)
We can clearly assume that a minimal level of etroversion is nessecearry to come into such this forum and be willing to post their opinions. (Note that this analysis is only for posters and not for lurkers.) While we don't have much more information to point one way or another I think what we have is enough to qualify the Skeptic Friends for E
Sensation or Intuition (S/N)
This one is a lot easier. Clearly the Skeptic Friends are much more concerned with facts than with fantasy and value reality above imagination. They are very much down to earth and therfore S
Thinking or Feeling (T/F)
This is the easiest of the four criteria. A Skeptic Friend is very obviosly let by his thoughts rather then by his emotions. An unequivocal T
Judgment or Perception (J/P)
This is harder again because we only have the Skeptics Friends online behaviour to go by and can't take a look into their rooms to find out wether they are tidied up. I think however that we can infer that they prefer to come to a conclusion rather then to probe for new options. It also is apperant that they prefer to be tied to the rules of science instead of just accepting whatever theory takes their fancy. I would suggest a tenteative J.
The Skeptic Friends are ESTJ - Supervisor Guardians.
The profile linked above contains a lot of descriptions in wich the Skeptic Friends will surely recognize themselves. It also contaisn descriptions like this:
... Like all the Guardians, ESTJs worry a good deal about society falling apart, morality decaying, standards being undermined, traditions being lost, and they do all they can to preserve and to extend the institutions that embody social order. ...
But I think we can ignore those parts and concentrait on the parts that validate our theory.
What do the others think?
PS. Spamorama, I have psychic powers and can predict wether a coin will fall heads or tails. Sure it only works 50% of the time, and sure that is shitty pysics percentage but these odds are plenty good in vegas where (almost) all games of chance have a less then 50% in your favour. Want to hire me for employee screening?
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 04:24:12 [Permalink]
|
I used to be obsessed with the personality sorter about 10 years ago, when it hit its apex (people in the field now tell me that, while the books still sell in the pop psychology sections of stores, the use of these tests is becoming increasingly discredited in practice, for the reasons that Lars and others cite). It seemed a perfect system for figuring out what makes people "tick" (which should have sent up a red flag--as Lars states, human behaviour is too complex to pigeon-hole people in this manner).
AT BEST, the personality sorter may give some sort of clues regarding how certain people may be likely to behave. However, the questions seem sufficiently vague (like the predictions of astrology) to produce indeterminate results. Many of the choices presented are false dichotomys (e.g., a person's preferred answer could be neither or both choices, rather than either/or) or presented with imprecise language "Are you typically..., Do you feel....?" I could easily favor either option, depending on the circumstances. Is there a scientific way to determine at what point I "typically" go one way or another?
Now, you could say that I bring up such objections simply because my temperment seems to be more "skeptical" than others, which brings us to the central point. When evaluating a point of view, it is the argument for that point of view that counts. To concentrate on who made the argument and for what purpose is to commit a fallacy of relevance. As one learns in the first week of a logic or critical thinkin course, a position stands on the weight and accuracy of the evidence and the formal validity of the argument presented for it, AND NOTHING ELSE. More specifically, to evaluate a point of view in light of supposed psychological motivations of those who hold that view is to commit the genetic fallacy (which, BTW, is my main problem with Frank Sulloway's analysis of scientific revolutions--it's not whether it's accurate or not; it's simply irrelevant).
If you want to talk about psychology, I would say that insofar as skeptics tend to value logic and clarity of thought, we are actually fairer advesaries than most, evaluating supernatural claims, religious issues, etc., etc., on the soundness of the arguments for them, rather than an appeal to authority or attacks on those who present the arguments. Indeed, we often miss the mark (we're only human), but at least we try. I doubt that you would find the same sense of fairness on, for instance, a fundamentalist website.
"The only thing that bands nations together is the fact that their governments are universally bad."--Frank Zappa |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
