Empirical evidence for theories without sufficient empirical metrics

[BurnedOut]

Take MBTI for instance. Despite having no rational reasoning that can yield to examination, it regularly finds itself being used in highly evidence-valuing domains - neuroscience, demographic analysis, etc. It basically divided mankind into 16 subspecies preprogrammed to behave patternistically without considering the context in which their behaviors emerge. It's so garbage that MBTI practitioners themselves state that the theory cannot be examined - making it more like a religion. If MBTI was indeed real, we would be a species with a hive mind having specific tasks to do. If you raise an apparent ISFJ in an atheistic household, that ISFJ will seem like an INTP. I find religion to be much better than MBTI here as it has no hive-mind prescriptions but simple rules for inclusion-exclusion - it is not all pervasive. This makes it better as a subject of examination because the subjects volunteer and choose what they want as compared to MBTI which greatly reduces biased answers and interviews that attempt to MBTIcally shoehorn themselves into certain categories.

A similar thing went on with split-brain theory. Another great example would be this - statistical correlations devoid of any explanations - height and intelligence. If brain size does not factor a role in intelligence then how does height does? If this was indeed the case, dinosaurs might have been the most intelligent species. But that does not stop poppsy articles from shitting in 'Surprising indicators of High IQ'

My question is how do you deal with such theories when they have 'empirical' backing?

 

[BurnedOut]

RE: height part
If you already knew brain size is not indicative of intelligence then why did you not control the variable in the first place instead of letting it run free? That escapee flips the theory on its head the moment he escapes from the theoritical jail -

why are whales dumber than humans
-> if whales are dumber than humans
-> how are taller humans smarter than shorter ones?

 

[Black Rose]

I think a clear distinction can be made between perceivers and judgers.

If you can see that people observe vs always have an opinion on things.

I would look at this first.

 

[Cognisant]

MBTI is a classification system that sorts people by their preferred modes of behaviour and was created for the purpose of assessing the suitability of different people for different roles in the workforce, e.g. better to have an extrovert in a public face role and an introvert in a role that involves spending long periods of time alone.

For its purpose MBTI works fine, the problem are the people who treat it like the great unifying theory of psychology, even calling it a theory is taking it too far, it's not a theory because it doesn't assert anything. It's a classification system where you self sort by which type seems more like yourself and then there's observations (generalizations) about people of that type which may or may not be accurate about you.

Another great example would be this - statistical correlations devoid of any explanations - height and intelligence. If brain size does not factor a role in intelligence then how does height does?

You sound like you're complaining about the observation, that you don't think it's a valid observation because we don't know why it was observed.

How tall are you?

 

[Hadoblado]

The correlation between height and IQ is small and tmk inconsequential. I'm not really sure what the issue is? Small effects for random stuff is kind of expected because the web of interconnected causal factors is immensely complicated.

There are plenty of ways a small effect can be explained. I'm gonna go ahead and assume that nutrition, SES etc. are controlled for. Tall kids stand out to teachers and so get more attention. Tall kids are assumed older and therefore receive greater developmental expectations. Tall people consume more calories (on average) and so historically have experienced greater evolutionary pressure to make smart decisions to secure calories. Tall people have an inherent advantage in perceptual angle encouraging top-down modes of thinking that are measured by IQ tests. Tall people are perceived as more attractive/hierarchically powerful and are therefore implicitly advantaged in terms of developmental environment and academic opportunities.

But proving any one of these would be a huge pain in the arse, and most likely it's not just one factor, meaning the effect size of any one of these stimuli in an experiment could be extremely small despite the gestalt of their influence being perhaps meaningful.

I think the important thing is that you accept the observation, even if it disagrees with your expectations.

 

[Cognisant]

Hitler and Putin were both short...

 

[onesteptwostep]

Well, empiricism isn't the only form of epistomology. There's a reason rationality exists; we reason, not simply just use our 5 senses. When we discuss things, have a back and forth dialogue, we uncover the process of building up the reasons for things and discover the turns and twists of casuality and how it builds up our experienced world.

For example (I'm saying this for the millionth time now) the entire enterprise of the MBTI is descriptive, not prescriptive. We aren't prescribing preset personalities to people, but rather, we have a set of experience definitions which may or may not resonate with the reader. If the cognitive functions, the descriptions of cognitive experience, match with the reader, then it can be said that the person is that MBTI type. No one is claiming that MBTI is an empirical thing. That's what the masses think. That isn't what the MBTI claims. If you're on an MBTI site you should know better than this.

 

[Black Rose]

the suitability of different people for different roles in the workforce, e.g. better to have an extrovert in a public face role and an introvert in a role that involves spending long periods of time alone.

I think it's more complicated.

I either am ESFP or INTJ.

Both can be extremely isolated and not like people or the opposite so I do not know what to say about that.

 

[BurnedOut]

I think the important thing is that you accept the observation, even if it disagrees with your expectations.

I completely agree with you but media twists it to an extent that even the scientific community gets fooled. Take astrology - fucking thing won't just die and researches claiming about personality variances due to birth months keeps the pseudoscience alive

 

[BurnedOut]

That's what the masses think. That isn't what the MBTI claims. If you're on an MBTI site you should know better than this.

But when the non-masses - aka researchers start buying their crap then it's a bad thing right?

 

[sushi]

face shape personality classification is more accurate than mbti.

 

[BurnedOut]

You sound like you're complaining about the observation, that you don't think it's a valid observation because we don't know why it was observed.

Exactly. If nobody knows why it was observed, it is likely that it is bungling other variables through autocorrelation. That's just impossible to avoid in reality but it can be greatly reduced if the theory in question can be subjected to reasoning.

Statistics when used incorrectly is just a bunch of scientific sounding lies. For example - Indian cops publish in their database that they have a massive conviction rate when in reality, they consider 4000 cases from over 1,000,000 ones considering if 1% of an average indian state are criminals

 

[Cognisant]

True correlation does not equal causation, it's highly unlikely that intelligence corresponds directly with height and there's likely some other shared factor like nutrition. Poor nutrition stunts growth and stunted growth likely corresponds with stunted development or that in an effort to conserve calories the brain was afforded a lower calorie budget for thinking which resulted in learning difficulties thereby retarding their cognitive development (learning difficulties).

It is very likely the case that height corresponding with intelligence is highly variable by race, that what is short for a Caucasian may be tall for an Asian.

However it is also entirely possible that short people are just genetically inferior and stooopid

 

[Cognisant]

Two boys get sent to the principle's office.

"Why is it whenever there's trouble it's always you two?"

The smaller boy speaks up "I'm short."

"...come again?"

"Well height corresponds with intelligence and being of reduced stature and thus likely reduced intellect I am more prone to errors of judgement", turns to his friend "quite frankly you should have known better."

The taller boy "I tried to stop him sir, I really did."

The principle leans heavily on his desk, pinching the bridge of his nose in frustration "I'm going to regret this. Why didn't you let him stop you?"

"You didn't try to stop me."

"Yes I did, I told you we'd get in trouble if we got caught."

"And I told you to keep a lookout so whose fault is this really?"

The principle sighed heavily "and there it is."

 

[scorpiomover]

My question is how do you deal with such theories when they have 'empirical' backing?

1) I can have a rational conversation about if MBTI might be wrong with an MBTI fan, even though it lacks empirical metrics. But it would be extremely difficult to have a rational conversation about the possibility of the Earth not being flat, with someone who isn't a Flat Earther, even though the Earth's roundness has tremendous amounts of empirical data behind it.

Science can be disproved by new evidence. Yet people argue that science must be right. Maths is based on solid logic. Yet people say that maths is abstract and has no application to the real world.

I accept that the more evidence there is on a topic, the more people accept it without thinking. The more people accept it without thinking, the less people think about it. The less people think about it, the more people rely on their pre-existing stereotypes, prejudices and biases.

So I try to remain on the fence on most things, to keep my mind open and rational. I accept that for the same reasons, there's little point in talking about those topics, with anyone who chooses to be fixed on those subjects due to evidence.

2) I also realise that if there is a notion that lots of people accept, that doesn't have any empirical basis, then there has to be some reason that people accept it. It's usually the case that there's a different idea that correlates to the popular idea, that does make sense, and has a lot of clear evidence, which is why so many people believe in it. But also, the fact that so many people avoid acknowledging the real idea at all, suggests that there has to be a reason why people avoid acknowledging the real idea, and the fact that almost no-one acknowledges the reason for avoiding it, suggests that it would be uncomfortable for people to acknowledge the fact.

E.G. there's no shortage of humans who claim that they should be backed, seek employment, etc, on the basis of being "rational" (Rational NTs), or that they are following a moral ideal (Idealist NFs), or that they are protecting humanity (Guardian SJs), or that they have some special skill (Artisan SPs). But they don't really want to admit that they are using such claims in order to gain power, money or sex, because then their ulterior motives would be exposed.

 

[onesteptwostep]

That's what the masses think. That isn't what the MBTI claims. If you're on an MBTI site you should know better than this.

But when the non-masses - aka researchers start buying their crap then it's a bad thing right?

I'm not aware of anyone reputable claiming MBTI to be empirical.

 

[BurnedOut]

E.G. there's no shortage of humans who claim that they should be backed, seek employment, etc, on the basis of being "rational" (Rational NTs), or that they are following a moral ideal (Idealist NFs), or that they are protecting humanity (Guardian SJs), or that they have some special skill (Artisan SPs). But they don't really want to admit that they are using such claims in order to gain power, money or sex, because then their ulterior motives would be exposed.

Now we are talking. When people start asking for entitlements based on flimsy reasoning as Cog very nicely illustrated in his short story, you see the power politics through the murky clouds of illusion.

 

[BurnedOut]

https://1lib.domains/?redirectUrl=/book/3594227/46b7a8&

Check this book out

 

[Black Rose]

https://1lib.domains/?redirectUrl=/book/3594227/46b7a8&

Check this book out

my security system blocked this: can you give me the base title/information?

 

[BurnedOut]

Cannot even upload the EPUB

The Personality Brokers

 

[scorpiomover]

E.G. there's no shortage of humans who claim that they should be backed, seek employment, etc, on the basis of being "rational" (Rational NTs), or that they are following a moral ideal (Idealist NFs), or that they are protecting humanity (Guardian SJs), or that they have some special skill (Artisan SPs). But they don't really want to admit that they are using such claims in order to gain power, money or sex, because then their ulterior motives would be exposed.

Now we are talking. When people start asking for entitlements based on flimsy reasoning as Cog very nicely illustrated in his short story, you see the power politics through the murky clouds of illusion.

That's the world that had to happen if the current flavour of modern liberalism was not kept in check, and became successful.

A white male worked hard to get his job? Evil. Deny him the results of his efforts.

A minority wants a 6-figure salary without working for it? His great-great-grand-father was oppressed!!!!

You get things in the current version of a modern liberal world, not because you worked hard and earned it, but because you claim that you are entitled to social justice, due to being a minority of some kind.

So people learn that in the world as it exists right now, hard work doesn't pay, but claiming to be entitled does pay.

Can you really blame them for following those same rules, so they don't starve to death?

 

[ZenRaiden]

ake MBTI for instance. Despite having no rational reasoning that can yield to examination, it regularly finds itself being used in highly evidence-valuing domains - neuroscience, demographic analysis, etc. It basically divided mankind into 16 subspecies preprogrammed to behave patternistically without considering the context in which their behaviors emerge. It's so garbage that MBTI practitioners themselves state that the theory cannot be examined - making it more like a religion. If MBTI was indeed real, we would be a species with a hive mind having specific tasks to do. If you raise an apparent ISFJ in an atheistic household, that ISFJ will seem like an INTP. I find religion to be much better than MBTI here as it has no hive-mind prescriptions but simple rules for inclusion-exclusion - it is not all pervasive. This makes it better as a subject of examination because the subjects volunteer and choose what they want as compared to MBTI which greatly reduces biased answers and interviews that attempt to MBTIcally shoehorn themselves into certain categories.

MBTI is flawed. Does not translate to MBTI is wrong on every account.

The implication here is there are better theories in psychology.
There aren't. Psychology is weak in many ways.
Not just weak, even psychologist will tell you its more art than science.

Is it better to make lots of statistics and cherry pick data, to make you feel like you can accept there is inherent lack of knowing?

Most things I do in life require no science.
What made my computer is 2000 years of science compressed into a box that has a digital calculator, little bit of software to make it usable, so I can watch porn hub, complain on a forum, and maybe do something useful like surf internet or read or maybe program some machine.

Science is awesome, but takes time to do something with science.
Tomorrow the world will spin around again and I will wait for someone to give me a better theory than MBTI to no avail. Maybe 1000 years from now we will know what human personality is down to nuts and bolts.
Right now we kind of have to go with "its a pattern".

A similar thing went on with split-brain theory. Another great example would be this - statistical correlations devoid of any explanations - height and intelligence. If brain size does not factor a role in intelligence then how does height does? If this was indeed the case, dinosaurs might have been the most intelligent species. But that does not stop poppsy articles from shitting in 'Surprising indicators of High IQ'

Science is boring and does not pay. What that means most scientist aim for the lowest hanging fruit.
Statistics is the new voodoo. Makes shit look legit.
IQ is variable just like height.
Many variations in humans correlate.
Many variations correlate in animals too.
Genes are not rational. Genes evolved.
Mutations don't have to make sense.
Ask yourself why the human body is the way it is?
I want wings. Its sensible to have wings.
I want teeth that grow back, and when I lose them they grow a new like in sharks or rabbits. Well they don't.
I want super sensitive nose, so I can detect toxic things and eyes that zoom in, and balls that hide, brain that grows back incase someone blows it out with a gun.
Well nature sucks.
IQ height correlate, but pretty sure many if not most people that I know of from history were actually kind of short.
I don't know who does the science. Maybe its just my impression.
I do know that testosterone and IQ go together.
Its just that testosterone does not translate to the same outcome in different bodies.

Also I think dinosaurs were actually highly intelligent.
What indicators do we have they weren't? Well none.
Its plausible they were as smart as humans.

 

[BurnedOut]

MBTI is flawed. Does not translate to MBTI is wrong on every account.

It is pseudoscience. If you consider pseudoscience to have some truth value, it is entirely coincidental. Astrology talks about existence of heavenly bodies but does not mean that it is related to astronomy. What we think is about what we see so even the most nonsensical thing will have some sense because we are not capable of inventing entirely new laws of physics and suchlike in our head

 

[scorpiomover]

If MBTI was indeed real, we would be a species with a hive mind having specific tasks to do.

Interesting, because I already came to the conclusion that humanity acts like a hive mind.

Most humans seem to mostly rely on information that they learned from other humans, such as teachers, or parents, or things they read on the internet that were written by other humans, which is exactly what you'd expect from a hive mind. 8 billion individuals would get most of their information from their own observations and their own experiments.

If you raise an apparent ISFJ in an atheistic household, that ISFJ will seem like an INTP.

I find that highly questionable. In the UK, it's been pretty normal for my whole life to meet people who said they were raised in an atheistic household. So if that were true, then the UK would be typed as INTP. Yet the UK is consistently typed as either ISTJ or ISFJ.

I find religion to be much better than MBTI here as it has no hive-mind prescriptions but simple rules for inclusion-exclusion - it is not all pervasive.

I can tell you, that Judaism covers all situations. IME, most religions are all-pervasive. If they weren't, then there would be plenty of areas where religions hold no opinion as to how people should behave and should not behave. But it's pretty clear by all the complaints about religions telling people what to do, that there's precious little that religions don't get involved in.

which greatly reduces biased answers and interviews that attempt to MBTIcally shoehorn themselves into certain categories.

Sounds like how most people seem to behave on the internet.

My question is how do you deal with such theories when they have 'empirical' backing?

You mean, how do I deal with theories like that obesity is caused by a certain gene variant, just because 30% of obese subjects happened to have that gene variant? That would still mean that 70% of subjects that were obese, did NOT have that gene variant! I deal with it, the same way that I deal with most things that are considered scientific consensus.

Theories have to be consistent with reality. Reality is everywhere. So there's plenty of ways for me to check if accepted theories are valid or not. If they're correct, then I can rely on them to use in my personal life.

If they're incorrect, then I'm surrounded by delusionals. I already got to experience that during Bexit, because 50% were Brexiters and 50% were Bremainers. So I had to be dealing with at least 50% who believed something that was not true.

 

[BurnedOut]

Also I think dinosaurs were actually highly intelligent.
What indicators do we have they weren't? Well none.
Its plausible they were as smart as humans.

All intelligent species evolve physically to leverage the environment such as apes who are able to form complex societies due to their dexterity. Even crows and their ability to use tools and be omnivorous. Having a huge size is stupid in the first place in the long run and nothing suggests that dinosaurs were even capable of simple bioengineering at the level of ants or beavers

 

[ZenRaiden]

All intelligent species evolve physically to leverage the environment such as apes who are able to form complex societies due to their dexterity. Even crows and their ability to use tools and be omnivorous. Having a huge size is stupid in the first place in the long run and nothing suggests that dinosaurs were even capable of simple bioengineering at the level of ants or beavers

Thats like saying whales don't build houses so they must be stupid.
Apes live in groups and T rex might have lived in groups as well. Its not like we actually know. Its not like we know what behaviors T rex had.
You cannot reconstruct t rex hunting patterns and infer intellect.
Our understanding of dinosaurs is, they had nests and probably did something.
We actually know nothing of dinosaurs.