The dichotomy that's implied by using two classifiers ("extrovert / introvert"), rather than just scoring "extroversion" on a scale of (say) 1-10 is just brain-dead.
Perhaps more importantly, it's unfalsifiable, untestable. There's no possibility of identifying a person who is neither introverted or extraverted.
This is like having a theory that people are either short or tall, and then trying to determine shortness vs tallness by having people take surveys about whether they are comfortable in airline seats or have trouble reaching items on the top shelf. Of course everyone will fall into a little of both categories, but mostly all you are doing is wasting time.
Wonderful. The concept of falsifiability is a gift Karl Popper gave to humanity, and we mustn't forget it.
So from a statistical standpoint, you're estimating theta, some parameter that indicates your level of extroversion. What does this parameter get you? Will you then predict this person's success in life? Why would you want to do that?
Much worse, could you possibly point to this untestable parameter as being the _cause_ of one's success? Hardly.
But from an epistemological standpoint, there is some benefit to identifying what we take to mean intro/extroversion. So that's why we give Jung credit, but more as a philosopher and less as a scientist.
Comments
The dichotomy that's implied by using two classifiers ("extrovert / introvert"), rather than just scoring "extroversion" on a scale of (say) 1-10 is just brain-dead.
Perhaps more importantly, it's unfalsifiable, untestable. There's no possibility of identifying a person who is neither introverted or extraverted.
This is like having a theory that people are either short or tall, and then trying to determine shortness vs tallness by having people take surveys about whether they are comfortable in airline seats or have trouble reaching items on the top shelf. Of course everyone will fall into a little of both categories, but mostly all you are doing is wasting time.
Wonderful. The concept of falsifiability is a gift Karl Popper gave to humanity, and we mustn't forget it.
So from a statistical standpoint, you're estimating theta, some parameter that indicates your level of extroversion. What does this parameter get you? Will you then predict this person's success in life? Why would you want to do that?
Much worse, could you possibly point to this untestable parameter as being the _cause_ of one's success? Hardly.
But from an epistemological standpoint, there is some benefit to identifying what we take to mean intro/extroversion. So that's why we give Jung credit, but more as a philosopher and less as a scientist.