Suffice it to say that there certainly are clinical types who largely
abandon actuarial data, and there are clinical types who can't make
a move without it.
While data is always good, it only takes us so far.
Some clinicians, some, have remarkably keen ability to perceive
phenomenon without data,
>> >What we are seeing here is the old battle of clinicians vs nonclinicians.
>
>> Paul Brandon replied:
>> Where is Paul Meehl when we need him?
>
>Wasn't he more concerned with "actuarial" and "clinical" decision
>making.
>
>Let's not suggest this is isomorphic with "non-clinician" versus
>"cl
I've been following the MBTI discussion with interest. For years, I have
felt the MBTI has its best use as an ice-breaker in experiential training--sort
of a party game for helping people to focus on individual differences. I
couldn't accept the MBTI as a truly scientific instrument because o
At 8:34 AM -0600 12/11/02, James Guinee wrote:
> At 10:14 AM -0800 12/10/02, Harry Avis wrote:
>What we are seeing here is the old battle of clinicians vs nonclinicians.
Paul Brandon replied:
Where is Paul Meehl when we need him?
Wasn't he more concerned with "actuarial" and "clinical" d
> At 10:14 AM -0800 12/10/02, Harry Avis wrote:
> >What we are seeing here is the old battle of clinicians vs nonclinicians.
> Paul Brandon replied:
> Where is Paul Meehl when we need him?
Wasn't he more concerned with "actuarial" and "clinical" decision
making.
Let's not suggest this is isomor
>>What we are seeing here is the old battle of clinicians vs nonclinicians.
>>The issue is very much whether it has validity or not.
It is much more accurate to say that a particular test yields scores of
low/moderate/high validity when used for a particular purpose with a particular
popula
At 1:11 PM -0600 12/10/02, Hetzel, Rod wrote:
> >Like
>most clinical tests, it seems that the MBTI has demonstrated its
>utility for some purposes but not for other purposes.
The only way to justify this statement is to show that the measure
has predictive validity in specified situations.
> >Like
> >most clinical tests, it seems that the MBTI has demonstrated its
> >utility for some purposes but not for other purposes.
>
>
> The only way to justify this statement is to show that the measure
> has predictive validity in specified situations.
> Otherwise, it has not 'demonstrated
At 10:14 AM -0800 12/10/02, Harry Avis wrote:
What we are seeing here is the old battle of clinicians vs nonclinicians.
Where is Paul Meehl when we need him?
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall,
he Psychological Sciences"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MBTI validity
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:57:38 -0600
At 9:38 AM -0600 1
At 10:37 AM -0600 12/10/02, Hetzel, Rod wrote:
This is an interesting thread about the MBTI validity. It doesn't seem
to be overly productive to argue either that the MBTI has
reliability/validity or that it doesn't have reliability/validity.
Like
most clinical tests, it seems tha
At 9:38 AM -0600 12/10/02, Herb Coleman wrote:
it in fact make more accurate predictions than a horoscope?
The above is just face validity; it does not answer the question of
whether the MBTI works.
I'm not sure what you are asking here. The MBTI is not a
"predictive" measure but an assessmen
This is an interesting thread about the MBTI validity. It doesn't seem
to be overly productive to argue either that the MBTI has
reliability/validity or that it doesn't have reliability/validity. Like
most clinical tests, it seems that the MBTI has demonstrated its utility
for some pu
Quoting Herb Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> I'm not sure what you are asking here. The MBTI is not a "predictive"
> measure but an assessment of current preferred tyle of operating.
But isn't that EXACTLY how it is (mis)used in career counseling, one of its
widest applications? Almost ev
Subject: Re: MBTI validity From: Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:58:12 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13
At 11:34 AM -0600 12/9/02, Herb Coleman wrote:
Sorry, I don't have massive amounts of data (yet) but I can clearly
show how the MBTI is far better than a hor
rb Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MBTI validity
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:34:26 -0600
__
At 11:34 AM -0600 12/9/02, Herb Coleman wrote:
Sorry, I don't have massive amounts of data (yet) but I can clearly
show how the MBTI is far better than a horoscope. For one the
horoscope is based upon date of birth according to the Gregorian
calendar which been out of sync with the celestial zod
Subject: Re: naive psychology From: "Annette Taylor, Ph. D."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:27:12 -0800
X-Message-Number: 8 Quoting Herb Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I
find it [the MBTI] to be no more junk than
Piaget, Vygotsky, Kohlberg, or even Freud.
OK. I'll by that, but
18 matches
Mail list logo
