Thank you for this link it really cleared my thoughts a bit on the subject but here goes my interpretation.
Personality Types are real because we are framed to be one of the two things, the way you answer those tests is binary even if you are given a spectrum to choose from hence I think that if everyone does take a personality test it will end up being one of the 16.
I think that what we consider scientific or not can’t necessarily be generalized. Unlike physics or mathematics where the foundations are axioms that were based on experimentation for the first and logic for the latter personality tests dont fit any. Let’s say we invent a decision framework for psychology to decide whether something is scientific or not and let’s say human experimentation is the way to confirm that then yes personality tests are scientific because first you experiment by answering and you end up finding that the results do actually fit you.
I don’t know why people find the Myers Briggs test unscientific but to say that it’s unscientific needs to have some sort of proof or framework that explains why you think it’s that way.
I agree with both of you and I think Scott nailed the analogy with types and countries.
Let’s say we invent a decision framework for psychology to decide whether something is scientific or not and let’s say human experimentation is the way to confirm that then yes personality tests are scientific because first you experiment by answering and you end up finding that the results do actually fit you.
The problem with that standard is that you are going to find with it that astrology is scientific
Thank you for this link it really cleared my thoughts a bit on the subject but here goes my interpretation. Personality Types are real because we are framed to be one of the two things, the way you answer those tests is binary even if you are given a spectrum to choose from hence I think that if everyone does take a personality test it will end up being one of the 16. I think that what we consider scientific or not can’t necessarily be generalized. Unlike physics or mathematics where the foundations are axioms that were based on experimentation for the first and logic for the latter personality tests dont fit any. Let’s say we invent a decision framework for psychology to decide whether something is scientific or not and let’s say human experimentation is the way to confirm that then yes personality tests are scientific because first you experiment by answering and you end up finding that the results do actually fit you. I don’t know why people find the Myers Briggs test unscientific but to say that it’s unscientific needs to have some sort of proof or framework that explains why you think it’s that way. I agree with both of you and I think Scott nailed the analogy with types and countries.
The problem with that standard is that you are going to find with it that astrology is scientific