Unmatched someone: I was talking about how the movie Avatar is a blatant allegory for native/indigenous populations and the person got offended that I would “put real life events into a movie about blue people”
Been unmatched: the person had a series of 4 almost identical selfies but each one had different anime boys edited in as if they were hanging out (amazing bit. Perfect joke) and my opening line was “i hate when people have only group photos. It makes it so difficult to tell when one I matched with”. I was called an idiot and unmatched within 5 minutes.
While I agree those ladies were a bunch of loonies, I don’t think the test is supposed to be predictive (this is how you will be), rather descriptive (this is how you are).
Although I’ve had this same argument with people over the function of dictionaries being descriptive (this is how words are used) rather than prescriptive (this is how you should use words).
I don’t think this is comparable to descriptivism and prescriptivism in linguistics.
The predictive power of a classification doesn’t have anything to do chronological order of what you are now and how you will develop, but about if knowing one thing (the MBTI) allows to deduce another (age, socioeconomic status, interests, vocational suitability, whatever). In other words predictive power is about correlations and testable outcomes.
If a psychological test leads to a result that does not predict other statistical values about a person, it does not actually capture anything that person is, at least nothing that’s verifiable or falsifiable.
And if it’s not verifiable or falsifiable we might as well use zodiac signs.
Hmm, I see what you’re putting down. I may have to revise my thoughts on the matter. Thanks.