On 13 Jul 96 at 14:13, John Constantine wrote:
> Replying to LO8447 --
> Less stereotyping is better than more, IMHO, but meta-narratives
> such as you suggest are not much help either. Shall we drift off in
> a Jung vs. Freud combat thread? Human behavior has been around a
> long, long time...I'm sure we have room for some diversity, do we
> not?
The point I was attempting to make has nothing to do with whether Freud or
Jung is "better" (there are many other models of human behaviour to
consider, anyway). The point is that the MBTI is based in part on an
approach to human behaviour that was never accepted in the field as an
accurate representation.
This brings us to a basic question. How does one assess whether a tool
that might be used to promote a learning organization SHOULD be used? Do
we look at:
The soundness of the theory/model in logical terms
The soundness of the theory in terms of empirical support.
The reliability of the instrument (statistically determined.
The validity of the instrument (statistically determined)
...or some other criterion?
Robert Bacal, CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
dbt359@freenet.mb.ca, Located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
(204 888-9290.
--"Robert Bacal" <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>