Scepticism and personality type

[althea]

Good morning and a Happy New Year to all. I am new here, so hallo.

Now we have got that out of the way, I wonder if anyone wants to discuss the psychology of skepticism?

For a start, it is clear that we humans are all different in the way we feel and think about ourselves and the world, and we know that various people like Jung have gathered people into groups and given them names like "Intuitive" etc. according to their personality. There is a general website about personality testing, if you haven't met this before. (http://similarminds.com/)

We also know that there are several ways of creating personality types: my question is - is a skeptic a member of a specific personality type, and if so, which one?

If you haven't met any of these these, try them (for free) and let's see if we skeptics are in fact a similar type (that is, assuming that all posters to this forum are indeed truly skeptics!)

Myers Briggs Personality Analysis (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp)

The Enneagram test (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/)

A General Personality test (http://www.personality100.com/)

I am making a guess here, but I think that intuition is not something that most skeptics trust. A gut feeling or a belief, however true it FEELS, simply isn't enough to establish a firm truth based on reality.

What do you think?
???

[Mongrel]

http://skepdic.com/enneagr.html

http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

Generally personality 'tests' are fairly hopeless, relying on the Forer effect (http://skepdic.com/forer.html) (check the link to Barnum statements as well) and the testee being absolutely honest.

Try and find a test where that includes lazy, arrogant, insensitive or any other negative character aspect, we all have some...

[Mulder]

I'm a bit sceptical about personality tests.

[seren]

I'm much more interested in skepticism and political affiliation- has anybody studied that?

[Cuddles]

I'm much more interested in skepticism and political affiliation- has anybody studied that?

I don't know of any studies, but if the politics section of the JREF is anything to go by there's no connection between skepticism and any political views.

[althea]

http://skepdic.com/enneagr.html

http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

Generally personality 'tests' are fairly hopeless, relying on the Forer effect (http://skepdic.com/forer.html) (check the link to Barnum statements as well) and the testee being absolutely honest.

Try and find a test where that includes lazy, arrogant, insensitive or any other negative character aspect, we all have some...

Thanks Mongrel.

I checked out the skeptics enneagram link and found this among the references:

Romancing the Enneagram (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtRomE.asp) by Don Riso (reformed enneagrammy---well, not completely reformed: Rebecca Newgent's doctoral dissertation at the University of Akron proved Riso's version of the Enneagram (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/validated.asp) is scientifically valid and reliable.)
Does that mean as a skeptic according to this forum I must not consider the Enneagram system scientifically valid, when at least one PHD student, presumably after many years of study, discovered otherwise?

If skeptics were all Enneagram type Five, that would make perfect sense of skepticism......and that would mean that skeptics are born, not made, because that is the whole point of the Enneagram. Its a way of being you are born with, to use in making sense of the world. Its based in pre-birth experience, it seems.

I do hope we can get some other responses! Do try them!

The Enneagram test (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/)

A General Personality test (http://www.personality100.com/)

[Pebble]

Does that mean as a skeptic according to this forum I must not consider the Enneagram system scientifically valid, when at least one PHD student, presumably after many years of study, discovered otherwise?

If skeptics were all Enneagram type Five, that would make perfect sense of skepticism......and that would mean that skeptics are born, not made, because that is the whole point of the Enneagram. Its a way of being you are born with, to use in making sense of the world. Its based in pre-birth experience, it seems.

I do hope we can get some other responses! Do try them!


Here is the paper abstract:




The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of Reliability and Validity.



by Rebecca A. Newgent , Patricia E. Parr , Isadore Newman , Kristin K. Higgins


This investigation was conducted to estimate the reliability and validity of scores on the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (D. R. Riso & R. Hudson, 1999a). Results of 287 participants were analyzed. Alpha suggests an adequate degree of internal consistency. Evidence provides mixed support for construct validity using correlational and canonical analyses but strong support for heuristic value.

Standardized measures are expected to have published norms and an established record of reliability, validity, and predictive utility. As of yet, many personality assessments have not established this record. For example, some professionals and lay people use Enneagram personality measures such as the Cohen-Palmer Inventory (Palmer, 1988), the Wagner Inventory (Wagner, 1981), and the Zinkle Inventory (Zinkle, 1974) as a measure for gaining information about clients or for self-understanding. According to Riso and Hudson (2000), the Enneagram of Personality Types is a modern synthesis of a number of ancient wisdom traditions.




I get very worried when I see statements such as those I have bolded, coupled with statements of 'scientifically proven'

Note if you go to Newgents CV, you will find that her main sponsor is the Enneagram Institute. I'm not implying that this affected the outcome, but grand theories require rather more work than that presented to enter the mainstream of thinking.

[Mongrel]

Does that mean as a skeptic according to this forum I must not consider the Enneagram system scientifically valid, when at least one PHD student, presumably after many years of study, discovered otherwise?

When they only have one dissertation from a psychology student, yep that's a little suspicious.


If skeptics were all Enneagram type Five, that would make perfect sense of skepticism......

Why?


and that would mean that skeptics are born, not made, because that is the whole point of the Enneagram.
So it's Astrology then? Congratulations, you've just solved the entire Nature\Nurture debate.


Its based in pre-birth experience,

ROFL (to use the vernacular)

Human nature is far too complicated to sum up with a number from 1-9 combined with such sentences as
Ultimately, you are the only one who can decide what your basic type is. When you read the description of your own personality type, you will know it. You may feel chills run down your spine, or an uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach. This will be your subconscious telling you that something is hitting home (from Personality Types, p. 42). (Source (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/interpRHETI.asp)) means I'm highly dubious of any benefit from personality studies... "If you don't like what the test says just change the result!".


It's just another pile of self-indulgent, touchy-feely wanking (in the American sense) that keeps the 'consultants' pockets lined.


PS - We saw the links first time around, no need to post them again or we'll think you're a commercial spammer O0

[seren]

Thanks Cuddles.


wanking (in the American sense)

Eh? They do it differently? What did I miss?

[Mongrel]

Eh? They do it differently? What did I miss?

Over there they use the word to mean devotional, fanboyish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboi#Fanboy) mental masturbation.

[Julia]

Now there's something I wouldn't have known had it not been for this site.O0

[Mongrel]

Now there's something I wouldn't have known had it not been for this site.O0

We aim to please ;)

[dashwood]

i'll tell you my personality type; i used to belive in ghosts and ufos but i started reading books and that cuered me, because knowlege is the only way to correct incorrect thought proccesses...O0

[n8rae]

Good morning and a Happy New Year to all. I am new here, so hallo.


Hi there.



I am making a guess here, but I think that intuition is not something that most skeptics trust. A gut feeling or a belief, however true it FEELS, simply isn't enough to establish a firm truth based on reality.

What do you think?
???

I'm not sure about this.
I think that a gut feeling is very valid in the majority (95%ish) of decisions that we make. I personal rely on gut feelings all the time especialy as i am an art student and must often make decisions based on nothing more than what i feel. in fact my work suffers if i think about it and analyse it to much.
This is also the case in my relationships, what i want to eat, and many other areas of my life.

A lot of research has been done on "gut feeling" decision making. One study the partisipants were asked to bet on a game which was weighted in one direction (fixed for one character to win based on roughly fixed cards). Many of the participants had a "gut feeling" that something was up before they realised it was fixed and long before they worked out what was actualy wrong with the cards.

I also think we can train our "gut feelings" by thinking thru situations before we get to them, so when we are in the middle of something (and there is not enought time to logicaly think things through), we are more likely to make the right choice.

So my advice for all us skeptics out there would be: Go with your gut feelings more often and see what happens.

natahn

[Pebble]

Hi there.



I'm not sure about this.
I think that a gut feeling is very valid in the majority (95%ish) of decisions that we make. I personal rely on gut feelings all the time especialy as i am an art student and must often make decisions based on nothing more than what i feel. in fact my work suffers if i think about it and analyse it to much.
This is also the case in my relationships, what i want to eat, and many other areas of my life.


So my advice for all us skeptics out there would be: Go with your gut feelings more often and see what happens.

natahn

Going with your gut feelings is fine when the outcome is unimportant, and probably essential in some areas e.g.art. In real life 'gut feelings' are ok for prioritising which option(s) to investigate further, but a disaster if relied upon. How do you think con artists and fraudsters survive? They rely on people liking what is revealed and not trying to analyse or investigate.
Relying on gut feeling is the antithesis of skepticism. It can of course lead to a much more exciting life, if on balance your guesses pay off and you can live with the mistakes.

[n8rae]

Going with your gut feelings is fine when the outcome is unimportant, and probably essential in some areas e.g.art. In real life 'gut feelings' are ok for prioritising which option(s) to investigate further, but a disaster if relied upon. How do you think con artists and fraudsters survive? They rely on people liking what is revealed and not trying to analyse or investigate.

What i think i was trying to say was, "if you have a general understanding of the how the game is played, you should be able to go with your gut feeling most of the time." Obviously if someone is trying to sell you something (a new idea, a financial product, etc.) you need to ask more questions, but in everyday life skeptical thought is not always needed.
I used to have a friend who would have to "go and think about it" every time he needed to make any decision. In the end our friendship came to an end cos when i went to him with a concern and needed someone to help me work through a dificult issue, he didn't respond as a friend or an emotional being he just said he had to "go and think about it."



Relying on gut feeling is the antithesis of skepticism. It can of course lead to a much more exciting life, if on balance your guesses pay off and you can live with the mistakes.

I have trained my gut feelings in skepticism.
I don't mean that my gut feelings are never wrong, but i have thought thru so many issues so much that when i get into a new situation my "gut feeling" usually aligns with my final skeptical decision.
Knowing this means i can relax most of the time and not have to tie myself up in knots every time i have to make a decision.

what do you think?

nathan rae


www.nathanrae.co.uk

[Cuddles]

I have trained my gut feelings in skepticism.
I don't mean that my gut feelings are never wrong, but i have thought thru so many issues so much that when i get into a new situation my "gut feeling" usually aligns with my final skeptical decision.
Knowing this means i can relax most of the time and not have to tie myself up in knots every time i have to make a decision.

what do you think?

As Pebble says, this is exactly what things like con-artists and frauds rely on, and even many perfectly legal things like advertising and politicians. Feelings just aren't that reliable. They are great for getting a general idea of something, or for prioritising problems, when it comes down to it that's pretty much what they're evoloved for. If you see a stripy pattern in the grass you don't want to hang around asking exactly how big the stripes are, you just say "Arggh, a tiger!" and run like hell, even if it turns out not to be some of the time. However, "Arggh, a tiger" often isn't the appropriate response these days, and there are billions of dollars spent on both legal and illegal ways to exploit it.


in everyday life skeptical thought is not always needed.

The thing is, this is precisely why most skeptical organisations are set up - because skeptical thought is always needed. Most people think like you, that feelings and instinct are fine for everyday life and skepticism is just for things that look suspicious or unusual, but that is not the case. Sure, you can often get by without any major problems, but for every person who manages that there's another one who gets ripped off by fake psychics, or has their identity stolen, or gets conned out of all their money, or votes a fraud into office, or wastes money on products that don't work, or any number of things that can, and regularly do, happen. Some are not so bad, some can destroy your entire life, but they can all mostly be avoided by a little critical thinking.

[Mulder]

I took a personality test once and failed!

[Pebble]

What i think i was trying to say was, "if you have a general understanding of the how the game is played, you should be able to go with your gut feeling most of the time."

I have trained my gut feelings in skepticism.
I don't mean that my gut feelings are never wrong, but i have thought thru so many issues so much that when i get into a new situation my "gut feeling" usually aligns with my final skeptical decision.
Knowing this means i can relax most of the time and not have to tie myself up in knots every time i have to make a decision.

what do you think?


I think what you are describing in the first part of this is learned behaviour and pattern recognition. There are many things we all do as if 'by instinct'. For example riding a bike, deciding whether to go out or not, typing etc. Pattern recognition is more complex, so in ones work, there will be many situations where one faces apparently complex decisions so routinely that one appears to make the right choice without thinking about it. Here we have over time identified the three or four pieces of information that affect the decision we will make and seek these out from a seemingly chaotic stream of data, and ignore all other information. This works remarkably well most of the time, but when it goes wrong, investigations after the fact show that we are sloppy by nature.

As to training you 'gut instinct' in skepticism: Yeah Right!

[Sarama]

Cuddles Quote:
As Pebble says, this is exactly what things like con-artists and frauds rely on, and even many perfectly legal things like advertising and politicians. Feelings just aren't that reliable. They are great for getting a general idea of something, or for prioritising problems, when it comes down to it that's pretty much what they're evoloved for. If you see a stripy pattern in the grass you don't want to hang around asking exactly how big the stripes are, you just say "Arggh, a tiger!" and run like hell, even if it turns out not to be some of the time. However, "Arggh, a tiger" often isn't the appropriate response these days, and there are billions of dollars spent on both legal and illegal ways to exploit it.

althea Quote:
in everyday life skeptical thought is not always needed.

Cuddles Quote:
The thing is, this is precisely why most skeptical organisations are set up - because skeptical thought is always needed. Most people think like you, that feelings and instinct are fine for everyday life and skepticism is just for things that look suspicious or unusual, but that is not the case. Sure, you can often get by without any major problems, but for every person who manages that there's another one who gets ripped off by fake psychics, or has their identity stolen, or gets conned out of all their money, or votes a fraud into office, or wastes money on products that don't work, or any number of things that can, and regularly do, happen. Some are not so bad, some can destroy your entire life, but they can all mostly be avoided by a little critical thinking. ------------------- End of Quote

Sarama wrote:
While I'm sure gut instinct has or had it's purpose as proposed by Cuddles, "Lions, and Tigers and Bears, oh my!", this is the very thing that is so often exploited in politics, complimentary medicine, and so forth.
And the most common, most studied tool that is used to manipulate and exploit people? You guessed it! Psychology! It is our basic instincts, our ignorance and often our fear that are relied on. I am not saying there is no value in our ongoing drive to understand each other, and put one another in flat packed fancily wrapped manageable boxes. I just put far more value in the questioning process.
As someone demonstrated above, when you dig a little deeper, you can and will find a slant or more specifically a motive.
At the very least we need to ask the question, Cui bono?
Who benefits? and Cui malo? Who suffers a detriment?
If you are not asking these questions, the one who so often suffers the detriment is you.