Quote (Neptunus @ Sep 26 2016 12:41am)
Somatotypes and Myers-Briggs are both heuristic systems that are both shown to be inaccurate and unsuitable for systematic prediction of outcomes. They're almost in the same category as phrenology. Sure thing, both are valid observations and you can categorize the observations arbitrarily, but they don't live up to what they promise. I don't read men's health magazines, get your argumentation in check.
The most consensual is the Big Five, and i'm pretty sure about that. Even this categorization is arbitrary, but the biggest difference is that it's reliable and repeatable, which the Myers-Briggs is not. Same people score different combinations depending on circumstances. Hell, i've scored both introvert and extrovert on different occasions. That's pretty bad even though i'm just one anecdotal example.
Myers-Briggs asks you something, and essentially gives you what you answered in an altered form. There's no new information there, yet people just wonder how they end up being perfectly described after answering, without realizing they actually just gave these descriptions themselves by answering the questions.
so inaccurate = valid now. nice self contradiction. somatotypes are also determined in coupling per individual, e.g one isn't completely endo or ecto or meso, but an intersection. it doesn't need all that research when just a few show a controlled group eating a fixed amount per day, exercise a fixed amount of time and effort, drinking a fixed amount of liquids of the same type and yet gain/lose different amounts of lbs on average. it's as inaccurate as describing gravity.
MB>5 on pretty much everything- bigger confidence levels, smaller alpha and beta errors and more variables in the regression making for a much less slanted module. what 5 is, is more popular since most researchers in their MA's and PhD's use them to validate their bs speculations with a much more forgiving module. So just like a freshman you make the mistake of thinking popular = consensual. take your anecdote and shove it.
i guess by your logic, Kahnman's groundbreaking nobel-prize winning discovery of human irrationality is crap because it asks you the same thing in an altered form and voila, people consistently answered according to his prediction.