Where I write up some small ideas that I've been happening that may eventually become their own top level posts. I'll start populating with a few ideas I've posted up as twitter/Facebook thoughts.
I've had a similar conversation many times recently related to Kegan's levels of development and Constructive-developmental theory:
X: Okay, but isn't this just pseudoscience like Myers-Briggs?
Me: No, there's been a lot of scientific research into constructive-developmental theory.
X: Yeah, but does it have strong inter-rater reliablity?
Me: Yes, it has both strong inter-rater reliablity and test retest reliablity. In addition, it has strong correlation with other measures of adult development that themselves have a strong evidence base.
X: Sure, but it seems so culturally biased.
Me: There's also strong preliminary reports on cross-culture validity.
It makes me want to make a post summarizing the evidence for Constructive-Developmental theory so people don't keep pattern matching to less-valid psychometrics like Myers-Briggs
However, in that case I don’t really understand what you mean. But, in any case, the rest of my original comment stands.
I look forward to any such detailed commentary on the fact-based motivation for any sort of developmental theory, from anyone who feels up to the task of providing such.
Where I write up some small ideas that I've been happening that may eventually become their own top level posts. I'll start populating with a few ideas I've posted up as twitter/Facebook thoughts.