Astrology is a set of systems used for attempting to better understand the past and present and for predicting the future based on the idea that there’s a relationship between the position of stars and planets in the sky and events in the life of a person. A system of astrology can be as basic as the newspaper horoscope, which categorizes all people into 1 of 12 categories. Across most of human history, astrology was widely considered a scholarly discipline. It was accepted as scientific fact in government and academia from early civilization up to at least the 17th century.
The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a psychometric assessment based on a simple questionnaire derived from the idea that there are 4 and only 4 principal psychological functions by which people experience the world. The intent is to measure and predict how individuals perceive the world and make decisions, categorizing all people into 1 of 16 categories. The Myers-Briggs is used by 89 of the Fortune 100 companies and is very popular in businesses around the world; however, it has been criticized as having methodological weaknesses, poor statistical validity, and low reliability.
The Myers–Briggs assessment is no better than astrology, and potentially much worse.
Continue reading Myers-Briggs Astrology
A friend of mine is a teacher, a very good one. So good, in fact, that if I could somehow transform into a young student and attend his class, I believe I would be richer for it. Personally, I enjoy teaching. I’ve done it a few times in my life. Never as my primary source of income; sometimes for pay, sometimes for free. Between the long chats I’ve had with my friend and my own experiences, I can certainly say there’s value in teaching. Does our society respect that value by adequately compensating teachers? Continue reading Teacher Pay
Last week on Wednesday, April 2, the Supreme Court made a ruling on the McCutcheon v. FEC case, which resulted in the striking down of limits on overall federal campaign donations set since the 70s. It was a 5-to-4 decision to drop the limit on the total money a single person is allowed to contribute to a spectrum of candidates. Whereas before the decision, you were allowed to contribute only a few thousand dollars in total per year, now you’re permitted to contribute as much as you’d like so long as no single political recipient receives more than a few thousand.
There has been some rather tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth about this decision, which was a bit puzzling to me at first. Prior to the ruling, if you were crazy-rich and you wanted to buy an election, all you had to do was fund a super-PAC. Now, you’re still limited in what you can contribute to any single campaign directly, you just aren’t limited in how many campaigns to which you can contribute at any given time.
So why all the angst? Because it’s a well-accepted axiom of politics that he or she who wields the most money statistically over time will win more elections. Why? Because of three problems with humans. Continue reading Restrict the Vote