HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: Re: Meyers-Briggs Personality/Temperament Types
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:07:03 GMT

First, the MBTI (Meyers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator) is *NOT* the
MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory).  With that out of
the way:

noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes: 
>What type of personality is held high in academic personality circles?
Actually, none of the comprehensive theories are held in high esteem at
the moment (i.e.  Freud, Jung) The 'big 5' which I talked about some
*is* considered good, although some people fault it because it is a
static (rather than dynamic model of personality.

>MBTI essentially puts people into 16 categories (81 if you count the 'X'
>preferences).  From what I see, that seems to be enough.
Well, I don't see that any 'number of categories' would be enough.
Rather, when you have dimensions, an infinite degree of precision is
allowed (at least theoretically, the tests of course are not that
precise).  As an analogy, using three numbers (and an assumed
dimensional system) can locate you precisely in physical space in the
neighborhood of the solar system.  How many 'categories' would one need
to do the same job of specification?

>BTW, what is the fifth personality factor?  Also, I'd like to hear the first
>four in your wording.
With reference to John in the Handbook of Personality, the OCEAN of
personality is:

V    O: Openness to experience, Originality, Open-mindedness
III  C: Conscientiousness, Control, Constraint
I    E: Extraversion, Energy, Enthusiasm
II   A: Agreeableness, Altruism, Affection
IV   N: Neuroticism, Negative Affectivity, Nervousness

In MBTI terms:
V    O: iNtuition    - Sensing
III  C: Judging      - Perceiving
I    E: Extraversion - Intraversion
II   A: Feeling      - Thinking
IV   N: General Mental health factor not persent in MBTI

For the MBTI fans, I've placed the pole that maps onto the named pole of
the Big 5 dimension first, rather than in the preferred MBTI fashion.
The mapping of the Big 5 onto the MBTI comes from an article from either
Costa or McCrae (they do a lot of stuff together) but I don't have the
reference with me.

>In your opinion, do better instruments exist?
Yes.  The NEO-PI is a better instrument, if you aren't really wanting
the Big 5.  If you aren't then your choice becomes much broader.  I
could list a lot of alphabet soup, but if you have a particular research
question then (usually) the choice of personality test becomes clear.
If you want to study Jungian Personality type, then by all means, go
with the MBTI.  If you question is about 'personality' in general, I'd
go with the NEO-PI.  If you're interested in abnormal personality, you
might want to use the MMPI (actually I'd use the MCMI), but be sure to
only use it on an abnormal population (I really don't want to get into a
flame war with Clifford Johnson).

Sorry to be so . . . Boring,

Frank Fujita
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: jeff.bowen@rose.com (jeff bowen)
Subject: Meyers-Briggs Persona
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:10:02 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 09-14-92 11:06
Continuing on with this thread, but with a slightly different tack:

I am a social worker doing mainly individual and couple therapy in a 
large urban Family Service Agency.

I am interested in using some type of inventory that will be able to 
quantify change in therapy... some kind of pre-post administered 
instrument that would pick up progress (or lack thereof).  It would 
also have to be something available to social workers and which can be 
scored without a degree in boolean algebra.

I have used something called the Taylor Johnson Temperament Analysis 
with some of my clients and found it useful, but it doesn't seem to 
lend itself to summing up information about more than one client at a 
time.

My reading of the literature leads me to think that the Brief Symptom 
Inventory by Derogatis is one of the most commonly-used tools for this 
purpose and I do think that using something that has been used by 
others would be best in that it would make comparisons with other 
populations possible at a future date.

I have also looked at the Multi Problem Screening Instrument by 
Walter Hudson of the University of Arizona.  It seems vaguely similar 
to the B.S.I. but has a lot more questions (over 300) and covers a lot 
more dimensions.  Hudson also has good reliability and validity 
information available (as does Derogatis) but Hudson's M.P.S.I. seems 
to be at an earlier stage of establishing "cutting scores" that could 
be used to track the numbers of clients moving from the "clinical" to 
the "healthy" population on given dimensions.

This does not have to be a diagnostic device and it will be used 
mainly with cases in briefer forms of therapy (although I do have some 
long-term cases I'd like to try it on as well).

Any suggestions and references from those who do more of this than I 
would be greatly appreciated.

I can also be reached at:        jeff.bowen@rose.com
                                         or
                                 dbowen@fsw.mgmt.utoronto.ca
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001057: Individualists unite!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Meyers-Briggs Personality/Temperament Types
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 23:34:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita) writes:

>What do you want to compare it to?  It is the premiere test of Jungian
>Personality.  Jungian personality is not held that highly in academic
>personality circles.  Academic personality is not held that highly in
>other 'hard' psychology divisions.  Psychology is not held that highly
>in the 'hard' sciences.  Etc.

What type of personality is held high in academic personality circles?


>So, I will speak from the perspective the the academic personality
>psychologist (which I will be in less than a year).  The MBTI is a
>conceptually flawed test, being based on type theory.  Type theory says
>that people fall into discrete types, being essentially one type or
>another type.  Many of the practioners of the MBTI know this and deal
>with it as a continous variable test.  Here it is a moderately good test
>having reasonable reliability.  It factors well with four of the 'Big 5'
>personality factors, and does not deal with psychological health, making
>it relatively harmless when improperly applied.

MBTI essentially puts people into 16 categories (81 if you count the 'X'
preferences).  From what I see, that seems to be enough.  Or putting it
another way, how many total categories can do a credible job of covering
people.


BTW, what is the fifth personality factor?  Also, I'd like to hear the first
four in your wording.


>If I had a data set with the MBTI, I'd definitely use it.  If I was
>constructing a personalty study from scratch, I'd pick a better instrument.

In your opinion, do better instruments exist?


Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Xref: sparky sci.psychology:3770 sci.med:17368
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.med
Subject: Re: Perkadine
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:00:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Sep14.150032.21414
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <92258.040012IO10677@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO10677@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Douglas M. Howell) writes:
>    Pardon if I've misspelled the drug's name.  I'm curious to find out
>some information reguarding this drug.  As far as I know, it is given to
>women who experience difficulty in child birth.  The drug supposedly can
>produce mild to severe depression in both the child and mother.

I think you've mangled the name.  I don't have the foggiest idea what
you're talking about.  Now, I imagine that you _could_ be talking about
some sort of narcotic analgesic.  In such cases, the drug can cause
_respiratory_ depression and sedation in the child and mother.  That's
an acute effect, and has nothing to do with depression, the psychological
state.

>    What other side-effects can be attributed to having this drug?  Can
>the long-term effects of the drug be countered?

What long term effects?

>    My friend got this drug when she had her first child.  She was
>adminstered four bags of Perkadine solution.  Her son is four now and she
>still suffers from mild hallucinations and paranoia.  The first year after
>the child's birth left her with extremes ofthe above symptoms.  She knew
>she had problems but was afraid to seek help.  Her major concern now is
>for her child.  At present he's a very intelligent and happy child.

Whatever this drug is, it has nothing to do with this woman's symptoms.

>    For history reference, her mother also was given the same drug when
>my friend's younger brother was birthed.  Her mother has had mild
>depression and strong vivid dreams ever since.

Whatever this drug is, it has nothing to do with her mother's symptoms.

>    Have any correlations been done to relate suicides to drugs such
>as Perkidine?

Why don't you get back to us with the correct name, OK?

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: mccla_d@aelle.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Subject: RE: Psychology as Science
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:10:13 GMT

Gary Murphy says:

> ... I do know of one British philosopher who pointed out this flaw in
> "personality" theories: all data is consistent with the theory.

Please do look it up and post who said this, and provide a bit of context.

I am at the moment surrounded by piles of work on a particular personality
theory, and much of my data (and that of every single investigator in this
subject) is not consistent with the theory. I at first took your post to mean
that the data all supported the theory. This is plainly untrue. Then it 
ocurred to me that what might have been intended was that all the data was 
interprated in accordance with the theory being tested. While this is the 
matter of course for any test of any particular theory, personality or not,
it may appear that the data is being considered consistent with the theory
while it in fact may well not support it. After all, you don't look at data
for a test of subconscious activity in terms of Skinneresque behaviorism.

I get results which do not support my theory, but I measure them in terms
of the theory. This is very different from saying all my data is consistent
with my theory.

Which did he mean?
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:33:55 CDT
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Distribution: world
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <DLB.92Sep11104456@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, by dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton):
>    this effect.  No amount of personal anecdotes can supplant the
>    scientific approach for dealing with these sorts of extraneous
>    effects.  You need well controlled situations to study claims like
>    "NLP cures phobias quickly and the effects are permanent".
>
> Excellent.  Thank you.  This one paragraph sets out the various
> differences between clinical and scientific approaches better than I
> could have done.
>
> A scientific study attempts to eliminate the placebo effect to the
> maximum extent possible.  Clinical procedures (including NLP) attempt
> to invoke the placebo effect as much as possible.

> No amount of screaming by the clinicians will convince a scientific
> reviewer that case histories are a substitute for controlled studies.
> No amount of preaching by scientists will convince clinicians that
> this or that procedure does not work, when patients have been helped.

The current state-of-the-art in psychological experimental research is not
to predict whether a certain procedure X will work or not. Rather, it is to
detirmine the percentage of people who will be helped by procedure X, as
compared to a placebo procedure. The immediate goal is to seperate out the
effects caused by normal healing and placebo effects from the effects
caused by procedure X. The long-term goal is to detirmine which procedures
have the highest probability of working. Then, hopefully, when a clinician
is choosing interventions, he can start with one that works with 90% of
people and if that doesn't work, go on down the list to one that maybe only
works with 1% of people but this person happens to be in that 1%.

My supervisor at school asked me the same question: "Why are you so
research-oriented? If it works, who cares whether it's the placebo effect
or whatever?" My answer was basically above -- research doesn't tell me
what will work with one particular student, but it does tell me what will
work with MOST of my students. Once I have 9/10ths of my students taken
care of, I can then expend my energy on individually choosing appropriate
methods for taking care of the remaining 1/10th of the students -- instead
of spending enormous time and energy trying random methods on each student,
I only have to do that with 1/10th of the students.

Not to mention that many placebos are expensive (NLP training ain't cheap,
folks, and neither is computer-assisted-instruction in education -- both of
which may get their primary effect from placebo effects). In this case, you
may wish to substitute a less expensive but equally effective placebo --
but without the research, you wouldn't have a clue.

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Psychology as Science
Date: 11 Sep 1992 02:08:20 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

>>After you remove advances in genetics, biology, and chemistry, which
>>aren't under the province of psychology

>Why does all of academia have to be artificially compartmentalized?

I agree with this sentiment whole heartedly. But it is my understanding that
major advances in the above areas were not made by psychologists. If this
is untrue please inform me.

Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.skeptic
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM d(Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:45:04 GMT

Max Webb writes:
> by measuring brainwaves and REM activity, we can tell,
> _TO_ _GREATER_ _ACCURACY_ than the subject herself exactly
> how much dreaming she has been doing.

What we have measured is not dreaming.
Physiology, behavior, and CNS events are not dreaming.
The use of "dreaming" above is simply a category mistake.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Xref: sparky sci.psychology:3791 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery:6173
From: steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP and what the .... are we talking about???
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:38:42 GMT
Organization: Don Steiny Software

ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:


>Understand that what we are talking about here, since noone has
>produced any major piece of "scientific study" of NLP, is our
>beliefs.  A belief is simply a rule or generalization of what must
>happen in order for something to be "true" or experienced.

	If you had been reading this group for a while you would realize
that many readers feel that the "sci" in "sci.psychology" stands for
"science" and since, as you said, noone has produced any major piece
of scientific study of NLP, perhaps the NLP discussion belongs elsewhere.

	Personally, I do not agree.   

	However, your uncritical acceptance of NLP is disturbing.   Can't
followers of the Reverend Moon, Werner Ehardt, or L. Ron Hubbard make similar
statements?   What is the difference between you saying that NLP must be valid
because I had a change in my thought processes and someone saying that
Scientology must be valid, or EST, or whatever?    It is not to say that they
are not, but you are missing some of the elements of a persuasive argument,
for instance, reduplicatability.

	Just wait 15 years and see what you think then.   

	If you talk about NLP in a public forum, you are preaching.   If you
have nothing better to say about it than "wow, cosmic" you are not doing NLP
a service.    Tony Robins is being sued by dozens of people right now, Richard
Bandler was indicted for murder, his trial uncovered a life of massive
cocaine consumption, kinky sex (he liked to be tied up and whipped).  
It is pretty clear that he did indeed murder the prostitute and that he got
off because of a legal technicality. 

	It is ironic that I appear to be taking an anti-NLP position, because
I have worked for and with John Grinder for 15 years and consider him a good
friend.   I have even made some minor contributions to "NLP."   However,
I like to see people think for themselves and too many people seem to be
making NLP into a religion.

	There is in fact a church in Los Angeles called "the church of the
optimum outcome."   They think John and Richard are the second coming of
Christ or something totally weird like that.

	If you write to a group where many of the readers are academic
psychologists and you make a philosophical statement about "beliefs" 
it is if you are telling biologists that they have to accept creation
science as an act of faith.    You are NOT pacing or getting into their
model of the world.   You are failing at NLP.

-don


P.S. Every time I read your "have a nice day" signature, it comes of as
     extremely insulting, kind of like you are saying the "f" word to 
     everyone.   "You are totally wrong and have no idea of what's going 
     on . . . have a nice day."
-- 
Don Steiny
Don Steiny Software
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408) 425-0382
Xref: sparky sci.psychology:3666 sci.misc:1592 talk.politics.misc:44179
From: zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Eric Zorrilla)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Note on Smithsonian psych. exhibit
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:08:26 GMT
Followup-To: sci.misc,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep8.171041.13225@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <8SEP199208144129@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:

While this discussion started out on a patently psychological topic, it appears
to have headed towards the more general "talk" domain and, more than that,
almost seems more apporpriate for e-mail.  In any event, I just changed the
follow-up thread.  Just thought I'd let all interested and involved parties
know...

[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
| Eric Zorrilla - Dept. of Psychology  | zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu     |
| University of Pennsylvania           | 3815 Walnut, Philadelphia, PA 19104  |
[--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------]
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Note on Smithsonian psych. exhibit
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:31:10 GMT

In article <7SEP199208553539@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>>Tell me why I should listen to _you_ when you describe this exhibit.  You have
>>in articles elsewhere suggested that people treat news sources with too much
>>authority.  Therefore, there are obvious motives for you to post an article
>>which describes an experiment where people follow authority.  Tell me, then,
>>why I should not treat your report of this exhibit as a hoax, just like you
>>wish others to treat reports of fighting in Yugoslavia?
>A very good point. 
>As far as the exhibit is concerned, anybody in the Washington
>area can verify the truth and completeness of my description by
>going to the Smithsonian and seeing for themselves. ...

That is not a difference.  At least, not for me.  It's true that anyone in the
DC area can visit the Smithsonian, but it's also true that anyone in the
appropriate area in Bosnia can visit Sarajevo, and "see for themselves" too.

Furthermore, I was there.  I saw the psychology exhibit.  I didn't see the
specific part with the black and white squares.  Now, I didn't look at every
part of the psychology exhibit, so it's always _possible_ that it's in the
part I didn't see, but playing devil's advocate, I don't think my experience
of the exhibit, and your description of it, add up.

>As for interpretation of more remote events, I'm working from
>the same data as everybody else -- the news media -- so that
>there would seem to be no reason for anybody to pay attention to
>me.

Everyone else (except people who visited former Yugoslavia) does see the same
new media as you--but everyone else (except people who visited the
Smithsonian) reads the same articles from you also.  Yet, you do not wish me
to doubt your articles when _you_ report events.

>I'm betting, though, that I'm correctly identifying things
>that don't "add up." As such, I'm not trying to get people to
>=believe= my interpretation any particular event so much as I'm
>trying to get them to question their own assumptions about the
>news. 

It is always possible to find things that don't "add up".  Even if a report is
actually accurate, you can _still_ find things that don't add up in it; it's
very easy to ask so many questions that some will go unanswered, and it's very
easy to doubt "unlikely" things which happened nevertheless--and although any
_specific_ unlikely thing is unexpected, there's probably going to be _some_
unlikely occurrence....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology