Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 121 to 148 of 148

Thread: Post Interesting Psychology Articles

  1. #121
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yılmaz, Enver & Ünal, Özge & Palancı, Mehmet & Gençer, Ali & Örek, Alp & Tatar, Arkun & selçuk, Ziya & Aydemir, Omer. (2016). The Relation between the Nine Types Temperament Model and the Five Factor Personality Model in a Turkish Sample Group. British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research. 11. 1-11. 10.9734/BJMMR/2016/20303.

    (-> Direct link to pdf file <-)



  2. #122

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    3,484
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Subteigh I think this would work better on thetypesite which has different sections for articles and no anti-intellectual sentiment.

  4. #124
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    @Subteigh I think this would work better on thetypesite which has different sections for articles and no anti-intellectual sentiment.
    I don't think it'll be anymore accessible there or likely to be significantly more discussed. I suppose I have an inertia about moving over there. I do think it will be incredibly difficult for that site to get any really growth in this age.

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    3,484
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I don't think it'll be anymore accessible there or likely to be significantly more discussed. I suppose I have an inertia about moving over there. I do think it will be incredibly difficult for that site to get any really growth in this age.
    Yes, because people say things like this.

  6. #126
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,673
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not an article but:



    I think the lady doing the analysis might be IEI (reminds me of @Emily ) and the narcissistic mother might be XLE.
    Last edited by sbbds; 10-19-2020 at 03:37 PM.

  7. #127

  8. #128
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,053
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not so much an article as it is a sort of interactive display of some findings in a study
    Seems pretty relevant to this forum

  9. #129
    chriscorey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    TIM
    ILE-pars pro toto
    Posts
    2,330
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."

    -Carl Jung

  10. #130

  11. #131
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oishi, S., Talhelm, T. and Lee, M., 2015. Personality and geography: Introverts prefer mountains. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, pp.55-68. (direct pdf file link)

    I probably prefer oceans to mountains.

    edit: seeing the images that people were asked to choose between in the study: I'd probably prefer the hilly locations to visit compared to the ocean ones, but if I had to live between one of the other, I'd prefer to live by the sea with the option of visiting the hills.

  12. #132

  13. #133

  14. #134

  15. #135
    scientist donkey BrightDemonSheep96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,548
    Mentioned
    277 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, the high horse illusion (I just came up with that term so I have no idea if it is in use) is quite apparent when the perspective taking has a limited scope - done intentionally or not.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

  16. #136
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    This may be of limited interest.

    Greaves, L.M., Cowie, L.J., Fraser, G., Muriwai, E., Huang, Y., Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Sibley, C.G., Zdrenka, M., Bulbulia, J. and Wilson, M.S., 2015. Regional Differences and Similarities in the Personality of New Zealanders. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 44(1). (direct link to pdf file)

  17. #137

  18. #138

  19. #139

  20. #140
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Supposedly "Number of Children" is most correlated with: I talk to a lot of different people at parties., I feel comfortable around people., I start conversations., I am not interested in other peoples' problems. (Reversed), I sympathise with others' feelings., I am quiet around strangers. (Reversed), I take time out for others., I am not really interested in others. (Reversed), I don't talk a lot. (Reversed), I keep in the background. (Reversed).

  21. #141

  22. #142

  23. #143

  24. #144

  25. #145
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Conclusions

    There is insufficient evidence to justify the specific claims made about the MBTI. Although the test does appear to measure several common personality traits, the patterns of data do not suggest that there is reason to believe that there are 16 unique types of personality. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence to justify that knowledge of type is a reliable or valid predictor of important behavioral conditions. Taken as a whole, the MBTI makes few unique practical or theoretical contributions to the understanding of behavior.

    Such a conclusion is in obvious conflict with many published interpretations of the MBTI literature. This conflict may be due to the way validity has been defined in this and other reviews and the evidence used to assess the test. As noted previously, the validity of a test cannot be addressed with a single validation procedure. For example, many researchers examined the factor structure of the MBTI and found partial support for the existence of the four predicted MBTI type dimensions. As was argued above, however, this information was incomplete for several reasons.

    The mere identification of MBTI-like factors is insufficient justification for the conclusion that the MBTI is an accurate measure of personality types. These factors were shown to account for a relatively small portion of the total variance, suggesting that the MBTI provides an incomplete assessment of individual personality differences. There are also ample data that indicate that the factors are not independent of one another and that the MBTI correlates with other measures of personality. Indeed, that the MBTI correlates highly with measures of personality with much different theoretical and empirical origins suggests that the unique assessment qualities of the MBTI cannot be maintained.

    The discrepancies in conclusions also arise from how the validity of the MBTI is defined. Those authors who argued for the validity of the MBTI did so when a relation between one of the four scales and a relevant behavior was found. If the MBTI were a measure of traits and if MBTI theory did not make predictions about 16 independent personality types, then such a conclusion could be accepted. The MBTI theory states clearly that the MBTI measures types and that the 16 types are relevant and essential to understanding personality. The data do not support this claim.

    To reiterate a point made at the start of this article, this review of the MBTI was cast with reference to its applied uses. Had a different perspective been taken, it is possible that different conclusions would have been reached. Indeed, there is ample evidence reviewed above that segments of the test can be used to make general predictions. The primary questions that should be addressed are whether these aspects of the test are unique or represent more general constructions of personality and whether other methods of personality assessment afford more accurate predictions.
    Pittenger, D.J., 1993. The utility of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Review of educational research, 63(4), pp.467-488.

    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063004467

  26. #146
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    ABSTRACT
    The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI, Myers & McCaulley,1985) was evaluated from the perspectives of Jung's theory of psychological types and the five-factor model of personalty as measured by self-reports and peer ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI, Costa & McCrae,1985b). Data were provided by 267 men and 201 women ages 19 to 93. Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions. The interpretation of the Judging-Perceiving index was also called into question. The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it. However, correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework.
    McCrae, R.R. and Costa Jr, P.T., 1989. Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five‐factor model of personality. Journal of personality, 57(1), pp.17-40.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x

    (direct link to pdf file here

  27. #147
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Apps aren’t neutral. All technology effectively outsources work from humans to machines, promising purported efficiency gains at the expense of individual knowledge and learning. In the case of MUSE, the rich, if stressful, experience of parenting is delegated to a piece of software. But the automation paradox shows that the less we do something, the worse we get at it. The loss is two-fold: it isn’t just that the child gets computer-generated parenting; it’s also that the parents lose the complex lessons of uncertainty, delight, anxiety, growth and wisdom that are the rewards of family life. What’s the point of having children if they’re raised by other people’s products?

    The failure here isn’t exploiting anxious parents – that’s been a goldmine for decades. It is treating the child as an object to be efficiently programmed: in other words, to relate to the child as a nascent machine. Implicitly, the app perpetuates a myth that each individual is no more than an aggregation of data and, with enough data, profiles can be drawn up that can fully describe what someone is and will be in the future. This is what astrology has always promised and what personality tests have offered for nearly a century.

    Of these, the most popular, taken by some two million people a year, is the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, developed by Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers. Briggs, an ardent Jungian, had been captivated by Jung’s concept of types and used them for experiments to study her daughter. Briggs pioneered what Ming adopted with MUSE: she looked to historic leaders to define her frame of reference – incurring, of course, all the same biases.

    Initially, Briggs had designed her questionnaire to identify solid marriage partners, but after the Second World War, her daughter repositioned it to place people in the right jobs. The MBTI does what all profiling systems do: asks batteries of questions and organises the answers into types which are supposed to define your personality. And yet the test has no basis in clinical psychology, though it is deployed by most Fortune 500 companies, many universities, schools, churches, consulting companies, the CIA, the army and the navy.

    The MBTI test-retest validity lies below statistical significance, meaning that if you test someone more than once, you are likely to get different results. More worrying is that the questionnaire poses binary questions, asking, for example, whether you value sentiment more than logic or vice versa. The question assumes that there is a simple answer to this question, absent of context. Yet in real life, preference is highly contextual: I value logic when purchasing car insurance; I may value sentiment more when choosing to play with my son. Binaries always simplify, often to the point of absurdity, and they polarise what are often complements.

    More worrying, however, is the underlying assumption that people neatly fall into one of sixteen types – and that this never changes. In her eye-opening biography of Myers, Briggs and their test, author Merve Emre describes attending an MBTI official accreditation session eerily reminiscent of evangelical prayer meetings. Personality, her fellow participants insist, is innate and immutable, like left-handedness or blue eyes, and they urge her to join in chanting: ‘Type never changes! Type never changes!’

    This is narrative essentialism at its most crude and static – because we do change over time – just as Jo and Luca did, just as Jacob Dunne did. Experience changes us, flukes, imagination and accidents change us. The complex interplay of personality, work, illness, education, friends, family, history, success and failure will alter who we are. We play with, and add to, our memories and experiences all the time, constructing a myriad of different permutations from them. Most people become significantly more agreeable, conscientious and emotionally stable as they age. But a Myers–Briggs profile encourages us to think of ourselves as defined for all time along a mere four dimensions. ‘I’m an ENTJ’ the name badge says, meaning I am an extroverted, intuitive, thinking, judging individual. That is my fate, all I will ever be – I may as well forget about developing whatever other qualities I might have. Small wonder that, after her immersion in the history of Myers–Briggs, Merve Emre concluded that personality typing was ‘among the silliest, shallowest cultural products of late capitalism’.

    That there are powerful commercial motives for profiling people is obvious: worth some two billion dollars annually, the marketplace for personality assessment is swollen with contenders. After making its name with forecasting polls, the Gallup organisation moved into profiling with its CliftonStrengths report. Like the MBTI, this test also asks an array of binary questions (routine vs variety, heart vs head) and then arithmetically generates an analysis of thirty-four strengths. If one of your strengths is that you are a ‘learner’, you get to learn that ‘It’s very likely that you might have a particular desire for knowledge.’ The report is more subtle and less rigid than the MBTI, with qualities ranked in order of strength, but few people can resist the implication that those at the bottom are weaknesses.

    When pushed on issues of validity, most profilers concede that these tools don’t have much in the way of predictive power, they’re just useful as conversation starters or to build a sense of community among common types. In itself, that might not be so bad – were it not for the evidence that people tend to believe what they are told about themselves. Telling a parent, or a teacher, that a child is destined for greatness – or not – is not a neutral action; it can influence how they see and respond to their children and what they expect of them. Well understood as the Pygmalion effect, the insight derives from an early experiment where primary school teachers in California were told that a few named pupils were especially talented. At the end of a year, when the researchers returned to the school, they found that, indeed, these children had achieved high marks. The catch was that the children had been chosen at random. The prediction had changed the way the teachers treated the children more subtly than the teachers themselves noticed. (A later experiment with Israeli military platoons showed the same effect.)

    How people are described changes the way others relate to them and may create expectations that are unfair, irrelevant or inaccurate. Tell someone that they’re bad at maths, lazy or uncreative, and it’s amazing how quickly that child conforms to those expectations. Tell an adult that they’re punctual, and they start turning up on time. Profiling subtly merges into influence or conditioning, nudging a person’s behaviour and self-image in one direction or another.

    Or consider the Forer effect. This is the strong tendency that subjects show to believe feedback from personality tests, regardless of whether those results are bogus. It is sometimes also known as the Barnum effect because it explains why descriptions which offer ‘something for everyone’ are nevertheless taken seriously. The Forer effect is regularly cited when discussing why people believe in astrology, infamous for its non-specific descriptions and predictions, so bland that they mean almost anything.

    Astrological profiles at the back of fashion magazines may not matter much, but psychographic profiles do. It’s bad enough when we invest them with authority; it can be worse when employers do likewise. Increasingly, companies turn to profiling software to facilitate their recruiting: to sift through resumes and match individual characteristics with job requirements. This form of matching is not wildly different from online dating: matching the profile of a job with the profile of a person derived from job applications and sometimes also psychographic tests. It’s fast and cheap and up to 90 per cent of employers depend on such algorithms to produce their candidate shortlists. But it’s wildly problematic.
    ~ Uncharted: How to Map the Future by Margaret Heffernan

  28. #148
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    366 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-fad-won-t-die

    in the MBTI, thinking and feeling are opposite poles of a continuum. In reality, they’re independent: we have three decades of evidence that if you like ideas and data, you can also like people and emotions. (In fact, more often than not, they go hand in hand: research shows that people with stronger thinking and reasoning skills are also better at recognizing, understanding, and managing emotions.) When I scored as a thinker one time and a feeler one time, it’s because I like both thinking and feeling. I should have separate scores for the two.
    ................................

    https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.996

    Abstract
    In 3 studies (respective Ns = 289, 394, and 1,678), males and females were assessed on Big Five traits, masculine instrumentality (M), feminine expressiveness (F), gender diagnosticity (GD), and RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional) vocational interest scales. Factor analyses of RIASEC scores consistently showed evidence for D. J. Prediger's (1982) People–Things and Ideas–Data dimensions, and participants' factor scores on these dimensions were computed. In all studies Big Five Openness was related to Ideas–Data but not to People–Things. Gender was strongly related to People–Things but not to Ideas–Data. Within each sex, GD correlated strongly with People–Things but not with Ideas–Data. M, F, and Big Five measures other than Openness tended not to correlate strongly with RIASEC scales or dimensions. The results suggest that gender and gender-related individual differences within the sexes are strongly linked to the People–Things dimension of vocational interests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
    Lippa, R., 1998. Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people–things dimension. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(4), p.996.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •