http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the general population. 8-)
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the general population. 8-)
Ec
NTs are to Wikipedia as flies are to fly paper (or moths to a flame). ;)
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the general population. 8-)
I think it much more important to realise that the people who put their name on such a list is also not a representative sample of all Wikipedians.
What I'm saying is, maybe NTs are just more likely to put their name up there.
Timwi
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the general population. 8-)
I think it much more important to realise that the people who put their name on such a list is also not a representative sample of all Wikipedians.
What I'm saying is, maybe NTs are just more likely to put their name up there.
NTs are also probably much more likely to take such a test when not prompted to do so (such as in a study). I've known my MBTI type for nearly 10 years now.
--mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people bother with it.
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
-- Tim Starling
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 03:40:19PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people bother with it.
The wikipedia article gives the answer: confirmation bias.
"Some even demonstrate that profiles can apparently seem to fit any person by confirmation bias, ambiguity of basic terms and the Byzantine complexity that allows any kind of behavior to fit any personality type."
People have a natural craving to "belong"; they want to be accepted into whatever social group they see themselves as part of. By deliberately ambiguous wording, the test lets you answer questions in such a way that you can deceive yourself into finding external confirmation of your perception of yourself. That's the lure.
Arvind
Arvind Narayanan wrote:
People have a natural craving to "belong"; they want to be accepted into whatever social group they see themselves as part of. By deliberately ambiguous wording, the test lets you answer questions in such a way that you can deceive yourself into finding external confirmation of your perception of yourself. That's the lure.
Strangely, though, the test I took tells me that I'm "ESTP", promoter, even though the description of it sounds distasteful to me. On the other hand, pseudoscience or not, it can't be denied that I "have no hesitation at all in approaching strangers and persuading them to do something". Even something as ridiculous as writing an entire encyclopedia from scratch and just *giving it away*!
I just can't wait to hear from the MBTI people -- they already complain to me every few months about our article in the encyclopedia.
For the record, I do agree that MBTI is pseudoscience, but I also think it's interesting and fun as a parlor game.
--Jimbo
Tim-
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people bother with it.
MBTI doesn't tell us much about what people really *are* like. But it does tell us something about how they see themselves. Unlike astrological signs, these MBTI profiles are self-selected, and there are quite substantial differences between the different profiles.
Knowing how people see themselves can be interesting. It's certainly not surprising that many people working on Wikipedia view themselves as centered around logic and rational argument. It would be disturbing if it was any other way.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Tim-
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people
bother with it.
MBTI doesn't tell us much about what people really *are* like. But it does tell us something about how they see themselves. Unlike astrological signs, these MBTI profiles are self-selected, and there are quite substantial differences between the different profiles.
Knowing how people see themselves can be interesting. It's certainly not surprising that many people working on Wikipedia view themselves as centered around logic and rational argument. It would be disturbing if it was any other way.
I think Erik has hit it dead-on.
-Rich Holton
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org