A logical error of MBTI tests and typing in general

[Tannhauser]

I thought about the following: why is it that people think they can infer preferences and functions from behavioral traits? Does not the theory go the other way around – that you deduce behavioral traits from preference and functions?

If that sounds like nitpickery, note that it would amount to confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A". In other words, the mistake would be to go from saying "If you have preference P, you will have trait T", to thinking that you can say "If you have trait T, you have preference P". It is the same as going from "All candies are sweet" to "All sweet things are candies"

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Cuz it fun? The best person to evaluate your type is yourself. I hope no one takes it seriously but I find it's enjoyable to speculate. I assume you enjoy nitpicking (a typical INTP trait ).

 

[Black Rose]

1. Behavior -> category
2. Category -> behavior

1. Evidence induction to build a model 2. Molding the evidence to fit a Template

I do too much switching between one and two.
And I do not fully understand the template.
You need to start from scratch like Carl Jung did with number one.
Or you need to fully understand the model with number two.
By mixing the two methods you get super confused.

 

[Jennywocky]

I thought about the following: why is it that people think they can infer preferences and functions from behavioral traits? Does not the theory go the other way around – that you deduce behavioral traits from preference and functions?

If that sounds like nitpickery, note that it would amount to confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A". In other words, the mistake would be to go from saying "If you have preference P, you will have trait T", to thinking that you can say "If you have trait T, you have preference P". It is the same as going from "All candies are sweet" to "All sweet things are candies"

Yes, there's an issue where multiple traits can lead to the same observable behavior, even if it's generated by different motivations. Also, not all behavior is necessary derived from inborn essential traits -- it can derive from environment factors as a coping/survival strategy. And finally, it's rather circular in that we typically come up with traits by observing behavior, then turn around and use the same traits to predict the same behaviors that supposedly point to the traits in question.

One can't really remove all the potential error, although triangulating data and making multiple observations in multiple scenarios can help reduce it. Also, people can be quizzed about what they at least hoped to achieve or what their motivations were for certain observable behaviors.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I wouldn't call this a logical error. Rather, it's a case of practical operational restrictions. If it were possible to directly gauge the essence of a personality, that would of course be preferable. But generally it's not, so we must triangulate from behaviors. This methodological limitation is something personality research as a field is aware of and dealing with.

This is not related to logic, neither in the strict sense nor in a loser sense pertaining to subconscious foundational assumptions.

Cuz it fun? The best person to evaluate your type is yourself.

Depends on type. xSTJ's are completely incapable. They often like to think of themselves as NF types.

 

[Tannhauser]

1. Category -> behavior
2. Behavior -> category

1. Evidence induction to build a model 2. Molding the evidence to fit a Template

I do too much switching between one and two.
And I do not fully understand the template.
You need to start from scratch like Carl Jung did with number one.
Or you need to fully understand the model with number two.
By mixing the two methods you get super confused.

I thought about the possibility that there is a two-way implication. I.e. that you can infer traits from preferences and preferences from traits. This has a strange consequence, because this means there is a one-to-one correspondence between traits and preferences, so the whole "theory" of MBTI would amount to just sorting traits into groups. It would not make sense, for example to ask "could this trait result from that preference?", because the preference itself would be defined in terms of traits. Incidentally, I think that MBTI does exactly that – it is a sorting of traits, and all the surrounding theory does not actually generate any intelligble statements.

I think that makes sense, because if you ask about, say, introversion: "what does it mean that someone is inwardly oriented?", Jung himself would probably proceed by giving you examples – that is, defining it in terms of behaviors.

 

[Black Rose]

@Jenny

I like what you said.

asking people why they did something is inductive model building.



@Tannhauser

I think I understand what you mean.

multiple traits can come from one preference but it is hard to tell which one when one trait could come from multiple preferences. That is why I like what Jenny said about asking people why they do what they do.

 

[Jennywocky]

@Jenny

I like what you said.

asking people why they did something is inductive model building.



@Tannhauser

I think I understand what you mean.

multiple traits can come from one preference but it is hard to tell which one when one trait could come from multiple preferences. That is why I like what Jenny said about asking people why they do what they do.

Even then, you can't rest solely on someone's explanation, as either they could be mistaken and/or deluding themselves (as possibilities). But it gives you more data.

The more data you have from different directions, the more you can see how the data clusters and what patterns exist within it. The "bad data" will become more obviously outlier points, and you can get a(n albeit) fuzzy idea of what the truth might be...

 

[reckful]

if you ask about, say, introversion: "what does it mean that someone is inwardly oriented?", Jung himself would probably proceed by giving you examples – that is, defining it in terms of behaviors.

If you asked, then Jung would probably...?

There's no need to speculate about how Jung "would probably proceed" if he was tasked with explaining introversion. He left us with Psychological Types — a 600-page book where he spent more time talking about extraversion and introversion than he spent talking about all eight of the functions combined.

And yes, sir, Jung's descriptions are full of contrasting behaviors that he believed were typical of the various types, and the spoiler at the end of this post includes a collection of passages in which Jung associates extraversion and introversion with lots of behaviors.

And in fact, in one very significant sense, Jung thought that behavioral results was really what type was about. Jung believed that extraversion and introversion were products of evolution, and had evolved as two opposing psychological orientations for the purpose of producing two different types of people who pursued two opposing survival strategies — i.e., two different sets of behaviors.

Here's part of what Jung said:

There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. ... [T]he peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring."​

Evolution results from actual reproductive success — and that's a product of how the organism behaves. So as Jung saw it, introversion didn't evolve because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to think a certain way. Introversion evolved because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to act a certain way — and accordingly hardwired introverts with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while hardwiring extraverts with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

Also: your OP suggests it's a "logical error of MBTI tests" that they focus on "behavioral traits" rather than internal "preferences," but lots of the official MBTI test items are more about internal preferences, including the many "which word appeals to you most" items, as well as items like "Would you rather be considered a practical person, or an ingenious person?" and "Do you generally prefer courses that teach concepts and principles, or facts and figures?" and "Is it a higher compliment to be called a person of real feeling, or a consistently reasonable person?" and "Do you prefer to wait and see what happens and then make plans, or plan things far in advance?"

At the end of the day, Jung's original typology and the MBTI (in both its dichotomy-centric and function-centric forms) both deal, at their core, with internal temperament dimensions and the various ways they end up being typically manifested both internally (by way of values, motivations, thinking processes, attitudes, emotional responses, etc.) and externally (through speech and behavior) — and in any case, and regardless of what Jung or Myers may have said, given what we know today about the typical impacts of the four MBTI dimensions, it's definitely a mistake to have an overly limited take on the MBTI that says your type is basically just about "information processing" or similarly dry "cognitive functional" stuff.

 

[Urakro]

I thought about the following: why is it that people think they can infer preferences and functions from behavioral traits? Does not the theory go the other way around – that you deduce behavioral traits from preference and functions?

If that sounds like nitpickery, note that it would amount to confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A". In other words, the mistake would be to go from saying "If you have preference P, you will have trait T", to thinking that you can say "If you have trait T, you have preference P". It is the same as going from "All candies are sweet" to "All sweet things are candies"

So in summary, you're saying that it's better to deduce behavior from type. And that there are many that mistakenly infer type from behavior.

The essence of typology is to make predictions of someone's behavior. For example, knowing someone is INFP, you could make a guess of the INFP's reactions to certain stimuli.

But without foreknowledge of the person's type, it's instinctual to speculate type based on the observed behaviour. It could be by use of either inference or deduction.

 

[Architect]

I thought about the following: why is it that people think they can infer preferences and functions from behavioral traits? Does not the theory go the other way around – that you deduce behavioral traits from preference and functions?

You are correct, it goes both ways. If you knew a-priori a persons Type (however you do that) then you can deduce probable behaviors. For example, knowing a person is an INTP you can expect they wouldn't be a party animal. However we usually don't know this information so have to go backwards (hidden variables theory) and deduce probable Type from observed behaviors.

In fact this is is my advice for people on how to type themselves - look at how you behave. Not what you think, or what you like or what you think you are, just observe what you do all the time. Best way to see it without screwing up.

 

[Yellow]

In fact this is is my advice for people on how to type themselves - look at how you behave. Not what you think, or what you like or what you think you are, just observe what you do all the time. Best way to see it without screwing up.

Using MBTI letters? or dominant Jungian functions? Because in behavior alone, they can provide pretty different results.

 

[headspace]

So as Jung saw it, introversion didn't evolve because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to think a certain way. Introversion evolved because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to act a certain way — and accordingly hardwired introverts with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while hardwiring extraverts with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

This is a very useful starting point with typology.

The topic of circular logic seems to spring up all over the place with MBTI discussions, but the approach outlined in your post really does a fine job of orienting an individual toward effective conclusions.

Nevertheless, leave it to the INTPs to ignore the utility and philosophize about the system as an abstract entity.

Off topic comment - I'm always sort of undecided about the degree to which I exhibit introversion and extraversion but the examples highlighted in this post really help me set it straight.

 

[Black Rose]

@reckful

This is very helpful to me. Thank you.

Here's part of what Jung said:

There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. ... [T]he peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring."​

Ti conserves the analytic process of avoiding cognitive errors.
Te consumes those methodologies of expounding every detail need to complete something.
Fi conserves those emotions needed to sustain personal balance and identity.
Fe consumes the emotional valence of attachment one feels from exposure to others.

Si conserves exposure to reality to only remember relevant information.
Se consumes reality to the extent that every texture is remembered.
Ni conserves insights to only that which can be drawn from within.
Ne consumes every insight one gains from the external environment.


My sister by these definition is an ISFP.

You can tell by her top two functions why she can draw what she does and why she gets angry at what threatens her identity. (people who try to control her)

Fi conserves those emotions needed to sustain personal balance and identity.
Se consumes reality to the extent that every texture is remembered.

And by these definitions I am INTP.

Ti conserves the analytic process of avoiding cognitive errors.
Ne consumes every insight one gains from the external environment.
Si conserves exposure to reality to only remember relevant information.
Fe consumes the emotional valence of attachment one feels from exposure to others.

edit:

My brother is ESTJ
My mom is ISFJ
My aunt is ESFJ

my brother really dislikes my aunt.

he says she tries to control everyone and does not help the family with her irresponsible finance debts and loans. And that she forced him to go to church.

My sister thinks she can explain to my aunt that she believes in God because of her strong feelings that church is not required because God only cares about you not people who don't give a damn. My aunt still thinks you need to go to church to worship God even if that does not mean you learn anything about who God really is from it. She really likes to listen to the music and the preacher because God is just about Social Feelings and not Truth.

 

[Tannhauser]

Quiz:

If 90% of all introverts like to read books on Friday nights, what is the chance you are an introvert if you like to read books on Friday nights?

 

[Yellow]

Insufficient data

 

[Tannhauser]

Exactly, it both depends on the frequency of introverts and how many extroverts share the trait. If, say 1/4 of the population are introverts and 30% of extroverts like to read books on Friday nights, then there is only a 50% chance you are in introvert based on that trait.

 

[headspace]

Exactly, it both depends on the frequency of introverts and how many extroverts share the trait. If, say 1/4 of the population are introverts and 30% of extroverts like to read books on Friday nights, then there is only a 50% chance you are in introvert based on that trait.

I have a hard time distinguishing between more sophisticated variations of deductive and inductive reasoning,
however,

I think with the MBTI you kind of need to start with a given, and work from there. I think that's inductive reasoning.

Well anyway what reckful posted was pretty helpful in identifying the a priori or "given". It might be a stretch, but if the definitions of introvert and extrovert are given by their definitions alone, without experience (i.e. without encountering these types), then at least we have a starting point from which to reason.

 

[Architect]

Using MBTI letters? or dominant Jungian functions? Because in behavior alone, they can provide pretty different results.

The functions are the original formulation, and the letters (preferences) being a Keirsey/Bates addition. Usually later practitioners improve a theory but in this case I think a step back, they make it easier to get started but harder to go anywhere. This is why I have to keep hearing extroverts telling me they are introverts, they don't understand the not so subtleties of the functions (they see it as either/or).

Short answer; functions. Preferences are a fart in the wind.

 

[Analyzer]

The functions are the original formulation, and the letters (preferences) being a Keirsey/Bates addition. Usually later practitioners improve a theory but in this case I think a step back, they make it easier to get started but harder to go anywhere. This is why I have to keep hearing extroverts telling me they are introverts, they don't understand the not so subtleties of the functions (they see it as either/or).

Short answer; functions. Preferences are a fart in the wind.

This made me reconsider that I am actually a ENTP.

 

[reckful]

The functions are the original formulation, and the letters (preferences) being a Keirsey/Bates addition. Usually later practitioners improve a theory but in this case I think a step back, they make it easier to get started but harder to go anywhere. This is why I have to keep hearing extroverts telling me they are introverts, they don't understand the not so subtleties of the functions (they see it as either/or).

Short answer; functions. Preferences are a fart in the wind.

You have this completely backwards. The dichotomies are the solid part of the MBTI; and the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" are what's stinking up the joint.

And the dichotomies were not a "Keirsey/Bates addition." They came from Myers.

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

Buuut contrary to what some of the function aficionados would have you believe, the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side — and the dichotomies differ greatly from the so-called "cognitive functions" in that regard. The functions — which James Reynierse (in "The Case Against Type Dynamics") rightly characterizes as a "category mistake" — have barely even been studied, and the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies, and as I understand it, not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in that same article, it cited a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes: "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

As I'm always pointing out, the modern function descriptions you'll find in Thomson, Berens, Nardi, etc. differ in many ways (large and small) from Jung's original concepts, and appear to be a set of descriptions more or less jerry-rigged to match up reasonably well with the MBTI types they purportedly correspond with. (As one dramatic example, and as described at length in this post, the description of "Si" you'll find Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk using bears little resemblance to Jung's "introverted sensation" and is instead a description made to match MBTI SJs.)

Buuut Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions.

And alas, Myers' lip service to the functions created what proved to be a significant marketing opportunity for a handful of MBTI theorists who've made names for themselves in the last 20 years or so by peddling a more function-centric version of the MBTI. And for better or worse (and I think it's unfortunate), both the CAPT and Myers-Briggs Foundation websites have long reflected the attitude that the MBTI "community" is basically all one big happy family, and — within certain limits — dichotomy-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be dichotomy-centric and function-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be function-centric, and everybody can sell their books and hold their seminars and it's all good.

And one of the sad results of all that is that MBTI forums are well-populated with posters like you who've swallowed the mythical Berens/Nardi version of the MBTI's history hook, line and sinker.

If you're interested, your deprogramming could begin with this post, which has quite a lot more on the dichotomy-centric nature of the real MBTI, and which also discusses the bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack — where INTJs are Ni-Te-Fi-Se, and INTPs and INTJs have no functions in common. FYI, that's a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, and maybe most importantly (and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI), has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

Talking about how an INTP is an "Ne/Si" type — and therefore has "Si" stuff in common with an ESFJ that an ESFP (for example, as an "Ni/Se type") doesn't have in common with an ESFJ — puts you in the same category as someone talking about how the same INTP and ESFJ have some similar personality characteristics because they're both Capricorns.

And that's a pretty damn farty category, if you ask me.

 

[Hadoblado]

You realise that this criticism applies to all of psychology right? This issue is why behaviorism was a big thing for so long. People responded to the criticism by going full "the mind is not directly observable and so for all intents and purposes it does not exist", and this rendered a lot of valuable research options taboo. While I disagree with where Freud and Jung took things, at least they were able to explore the mind.

 

[Architect]

The dichotomies are the solid part of the MBTI; and the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" are what's stinking up the joint.

And the dichotomies were not a "Keirsey/Bates addition." They came from Myers..

OK, I'll assume you're accurate here. Thanks for the correction, I haven't taken the time to carefully trace the history of MBTI. Regardless it validates the idea that later practitioners usually improve a theory, and I stand by that the functions are the best understanding of MBTI.

Example - J/P. Just using preferences leads to enormous confusion. For me, in many ways I'm meticulous and methodical. Sometimes how I code, how I like to organize my stuff. But other ways - social situations, laid back approach to life I'm a P. I'd say I'm mostly P with a streak of J when it comes to my work. That makes no sense of I'm an perceptive a-la INTP, but makes total sense as an inward Judger (Ti) and outward Perceiver (Ne).

Talking about how an INTP is an "Ne/Si" type — and therefore has "Si" stuff in common with an ESFJ that an ESFP (for example, as an "Ni/Se type") doesn't have in common with an ESTJ — puts you in the same category as someone talking about how the same INTP and ESFJ have some similar personality characteristics because they're both Capricorns.

So? INTP's have a great capacity for details, I see it in engineering contexts and casual. You can wave your hand and say "Well, INTP's are thinkers, so they can have an eye for detail". OK that's fine but a little vague, how much attention to detail do they have from T? And why do INTJ's have more detail orientation then INTP's? And why do ISTJ's have a massive amount? It's mostly handwaving with preferences, wifh functions (differing degrees of Si, or fallback to Te in the case of INTJ's) which correlates more closely.

As Hadoblado says it's a psychological theory so looking for too much rigor is looking for trouble. I take it simply as one theory is better than another if it's more predicative, which I believe (examples above) functions are. Preferences are good too, so they both work to varying degrees. And if you like preferences better then use them. In my experience they lead to more confusions.

 

[Black Rose]

As Hadoblado says it's a psychological theory so looking for too much rigor is looking for trouble. I take it simply as one theory is better than another if it's more predicative, which I believe (examples above) functions are. Preferences are good too, so they both work to varying degrees. And if you like preferences better then use them. In my experience they lead to more confusions.

I think I have a good theory of mind when it comes to indirect conversations where I am involved. My mention of family members and also in the witch hunt thread where I say MBTI is astrology most definitely rings a bell when reckful starts using terms that would go against his understanding because his critic of my understanding is the same as his critique of Myers. I have a loose understanding so I must think Capricorns has something to do with MBTI and thus how MBTI is useless methodologically in that frame of mind. Indirectly my frame of mind has no solid methodological way of understanding type dynamics. Dichotomies (astrology) does not work that way and trying to use that model is a failed result even if it works for finding groups of defined features in personality. Functions if you understand them does lead to a dynamic that can be seen but As I have said before my models are only how I understand them in reference to my experience of a defined system I am exposed to. Which is the MBTI community that has been saturated by preferences not functions. My ability to sort them out is difficult, there are not that many mature Jungians to talk to. And an indirect reference to my inability to understand type dynamics is by my understanding it is something not well appreciated accept for this message for me to clearly redirect the conversation to why this confusion happens in the first place. reckful obviously has an advantage in that he can read Jung and absorb all terminologies that he can use to type people and how everyone is incorrect, but as with my experience on INTJ forum if it seems like you have no capacity to understand a subject you are ignored. Definitely reckful respects Architect more than he does me showing how things work out on INTJ forum and why I left. This place is allot more accommodating for people because if we make an error here it is not automatically attacked or ignored but simply pointed out so that we can improve ourselves. Also silly games here are really fun. For example Blarraun helped me out understand what combinatorics was allot more than on INTJ forum. Over there you need to pull your own weight or you do not survive. Maybe that has to do with type dynamics? (type based on functions)

 

[Feather]

@ Reckful

That was pretty dam informative and I saved that to have all the mentions of links.

I will say that the INTJ and INTP have different approaches.

It seemed you sourced tons of knowledge about this and pieced together an account of which story is more plausible or sounds more credible by way of having tangible details to site.

To me concepts are just things fun to play with. Having a credible story doesn't alter how fun the concept is to play with. Some ideas are fascinating and stimulating and I think Jung's Ideas are - but I think its incorrect to project that they are important to the a INTP, because if you offered better concepts or ideas that are more fascinating and stimulating than Jung's I would immediately shift my focus to where there is content. But often those that I have seen that doesn't like Jung's ideas don't offer anything sexy only a list of peoples of names and sets of credentials.

For the past few months I have been interested in personality theory and in that time, all I know has come from what I heard others say on this forum. When I first heard of "introverted Thinking" This was !extremely! fascinating to ponder what in the hell that could mean. How do we fundamentally define "Thinking" alone? This is what interest me.

An example of this is my boss gave me a book about Jesus with a detailed account of what people said and their credentials and evidence and research supporting arguments such as to show the truth of Jesus. Those kinds of arguments don't mean anything to me for what ever reason what fascinated me was the idea of !perfect! and how could something living be prefect and what that really meant.

Being to a certain degree naïve has its creative advantages. Anybody who tries to create music will know that the more music you study, when you try to write your own song you will have spent more time recovering what others did rather than developing your personal skill and if you do end up writing something good you then realizing dammit! that's so and so and that's already a song.

To have a fresh perspective is a strange balance to strike between recalling a past story of knowledge and a naïve grounding to produce a the new authentic outlook.

Take this into consideration:

Louis Bachelier - created the modern mathematical theory of the finance back in 1892 and everybody at the time thought it was crap. Somebody who did not walk his philosophical shoes but tries to analyze his work based on referencing and comparing his work to what was credible at the time by looking at past story of testimonials of peers - is somebody who probably looked at his dissertation and tossed it aside.

It was not until 1955 that somebody could look at it with a fresh perspective and could realize what was accomplished.

Research and its conclusions is always selective and usually to accomplish a goal. For example that Twin Study's Conclusion probably did not take into consideration other research such as this about correlated brains
http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/Wackermann-Correlations
In their conclusions.

Also I doubt that phycology research take into consideration these kinds of outlooks on genetics and dna.

DNA is a molecule, composed of nucleotides, with a double helix structure. In humans it is organized into 23 pairs of chromosomes, defines 30,000 genes, and contains about 3 billion base pairs.45 About 95% of human DNA has a still unknown function, for which reason it is called “junk DNA,” non-protein-coding DNA, or introns,46 and the 5% protein-coding called exons. The more complex a species is, the more introns it has. Simon Berkovich assumes that this “junk DNA” could have an identifying purpose, comparable to a kind of “barcode” functionality. According to his hypothesis DNA itself does not contain the hereditary material, but is capable of receiving hereditary information and memories from the past, as well as the morphogenetic information, which contains the way the body will be built with all its different cell systems with specialized functions.47 Person-specific DNA is in this model the receiver as well as the transmitter of our permanently evolving personal consciousness.

According to Erwin Schrödinger, a quantum physicist, DNA is an a-statistic molecule, and a-statistic processes are quantum mechanical processes which originate from phase-space.48 In his theory DNA should function as a quantum antenna with non-local communication, and also Stuart Hameroff considers DNA as a chain of quantum bits (qubits) with helical twist, and according to him DNA could function in a way analogous to superconductive quantum interference devices. In his quantum computer model the 3 billion base pairs should function as qubits with quantum superposition of simultaneously zero and one.

You can see the issue in me taking a certain position based on selective research I don't fully follow and am not educated to fully understand yet. I guess that is the "P" that prefers being open minded and guided by style points and sexiness that holistically is sourced from a variety of knowledge that is all congealed into one big pile. So when an idea is stimulating to me it is some abstract sense that, based on all the variety of often conflicting research, that the idea has some merit that must be searched and mined like a jewel.

 

[scorpiomover]

I thought about the following: why is it that people think they can infer preferences and functions from behavioral traits?

The human brain has a hippocampus that stores observed behaviours in memory, and a pattern-matching system that collates behaviours and deduces general traits in each person. However, I don't recall anyone identifying that deducing MBTI preferences and functions is built into humans, or knowing which behavioural traits are associated with which preferences and functions. Thus, we have the behavioural traits as evidence, whether we have the type or not, whether they agree with the descriptions of one's MBTI type and one's cognitive functions or not. But we don't have the type or the definitions with any certainty. The type and the types descriptions are just theories. So we deduce the uncertain from the certain, which theories fit the facts, from the evidence, the behavioural traits.

Does not the theory go the other way around – that you deduce behavioral traits from preference and functions?

The type and its description are just theories. They can be wrong. But we have evolved to have hard-wired faculties of the brain that observe behavioural traits, no matter what. So if the type is wrong, then the behavioural traits will be observed anyway, and there will be a conflict between the type and the behavioural traits. Either the subject recognises that the type is wrong, or the description is wrong, or suffers cognitive dissonance trying to shoehorn the facts to fit the theory, until he accepts that it's more rational to reject the theory because it conflicts with the evidence, and come up with another theory that does fit the facts.

If that sounds like nitpickery, note that it would amount to confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A". In other words, the mistake would be to go from saying "If you have preference P, you will have trait T", to thinking that you can say "If you have trait T, you have preference P". It is the same as going from "All candies are sweet" to "All sweet things are candies"

We've tasted the dish. We know that it's sweet. What we don't know, is if it would be categorised as a type of candy. But we know that all candies are sweet. So we know that it could be a type of candy.

However, you are right about one thing: most people use the scientific process of Confirmation to determine their type, which is to come up with a hypothesis, and as long as the data roughly agrees with your hypothesis, then the hypothesis is deemed right.

Karl Popper favoured falsification, that a hypothesis cannot be said to be true, unless the hypothesis is shown to be a valid hypothesis, AND all other hypotheses have been proved to be false. It's far more accurate. But it is much harder to make your claim, as you actually have to test all potential hypotheses.

The scientific community generally used confirmation. So naturally, we can expect that those people who value science, to think that confirmation is good enough in general, including for determining one's MBTI type and the behavioural traits of MBTI types.

 

[Tannhauser]

@scorpiomover

When I thought about the various implications of the issue raised in the OP, I realized there are very many different layers to the problem, and the nature of what you mentioned in your post I think is one of the deepest ones – the ones dealing with epistemology. To spare myself some headache I basically assumed in the OP that MBTI is a valid scientific model which generates empirical statements from a core of theoretical statements. The point was then that anyone who assumes this, and hence also assumes that the model contains statements like "If you are A then you will have property B", commits a trivial logical error when they think they can freely say "If you have property B, you are A".

When it comes to whether MBTI actually is a scientific theory, I think it is clear the answer is no. Popper actually begins his "Conjectures & Refutations" by telling how he came about the notion of falsification as a way of distinguishing scientific theories from pseudo-scientific theories: he considered the difference between Freud's theories and Einstein's relativity. The former was in the business of finding examples where the theory did work (which you can do with any garbage theory one can come up with), while the latter had certain statements which, if proven wrong, would falsify the whole theory. Hence, the process of trying to falsify a theory, as opposed to validate it, is the real method by which one can make progress towards better theories. It is quite clear to me that MBTI has never made a falsifiable statement, so we know it is not anywhere near science.

 

[reckful]

When it comes to whether MBTI actually is a scientific theory, I think it is clear the answer is no. Popper actually begins his "Conjectures & Refutations" by telling how he came about the notion of falsification as a way of distinguishing scientific theories from pseudo-scientific theories: he considered the difference between Freud's theories and Einstein's relativity. The former was in the business of finding examples where the theory did work (which you can do with any garbage theory one can come up with), while the latter had certain statements which, if proven wrong, would falsify the whole theory. Hence, the process of trying to falsify a theory, as opposed to validate it, is the real method by which one can make progress towards better theories. It is quite clear to me that MBTI has never made a falsifiable statement, so we know it is not anywhere near science.

There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences. It's not a black-and-white thing.

Personality type is about probabilities and correlations, and that's the level at which its "statements" are "falsifiable."

Is it "pseudoscience" to note that biological males tend to be sexually attracted to biological females, because that isn't always the case?

If not, why is it "pseudoscience" to note that introverts tend to exhibit certain personality characteristics, assuming those characteristics have been validated by way of a body of respectable studies involving suitably large samples?

Here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESTJ 0.12
ESFJ 0.18
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that tidy are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from bottom to top) ES-IS-EN-IN.

That's the kind of evidence that psychologists have been using to establish the "validity" of personality dimensions for many years now. And that's just one example pulled from 50 years of MBTI data pools that have respectably established the validity of all four of the MBTI dichotomies.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that the MBTI is tapping into four substantially-genetic dimensions of personality, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like 30 times more likely than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech.

And I assume you'd agree that if someone had ascertained the zodiac signs of those same 705 Cal Tech science majors, it's very unlikely that the distribution of zodiac signs for those students would have proven to be substantially different than the distribution in the general population.

Why do you think it's pseudoscience to make the statement that an MBTI IN is much more likely than an MBTI ES to end up pursuing a career in science?

 

[Tannhauser]

@reckful
You could ask yourself: if someone is walking around and writing down in a notepad everything he sees; can that be called science? It's not really science, it's just observation. For example to say that males tend to be attracted to females, is exactly that – an observation. To make science out of it one would have to create a falsifiable theory of why that happens. That is basically Karl Popper's notion of science, which I think is intuitive: if a theory only contains observations, then that "theory" has no utility whatsoever – whatever it tells you, you already know.

I have thought about the possibility of calling MBTI a 'model', which is a weaker notion than scientific theory. A model is for example when one uses a Brownian motion as a model for a stock price:

[bimgx=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/GeoBM.png/500px-GeoBM.png[/bimgx]

A model is an honest approximation to the truth – it has a utility within the domain where it works, and is discarded in the domains where it doesn't. For example a Brownian motion, apart from making graphs that look like stock prices, has certain mathematical properties which it shares with the stock prices themselves. However, in some cases these properties do not match up, and in those cases one makes a judgment of whether the model is good enough or should be somehow refined.

But I realized there is an important difference between the stock price model and the MBTI: The stock price one contains very few theoretical statements (to be precise, 6 simple and unambiguous statements will completely define the whole model), and it generates a vast sea of empirical statements. Whereas for the MBTI, the number of statements in its "theory" is about the same as in the empirical statements it makes. Think for example about how many words and examples are spent describing what introversion is.

Hence it seems that MBTI is of the variety which only notes down observations. I think it is clear what one calls such a model: taxonomy. Which is not necessarily bad, because that has a certain utility. But to call it science, or even "soft science", I think is not justified.

 

[reckful]

@reckful
You could ask yourself: if someone is walking around and writing down in a notepad everything he sees; can that be called science? It's not really science, it's just observation. For example to say that males tend to be attracted to females, is exactly that – an observation. To make science out of it one would have to create a falsifiable theory of why that happens. That is basically Karl Popper's notion of science, which I think is intuitive: if a theory only contains observations, then that "theory" has no utility whatsoever – whatever it tells you, you already know.

I have thought about the possibility of calling MBTI a 'model', which is a weaker notion than scientific theory. A model is for example when one uses a Brownian motion as a model for a stock price:

[bimgx=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/GeoBM.png/500px-GeoBM.png[/bimgx]

A model is an honest approximation to the truth – it has a utility within the domain where it works, and is discarded in the domains where it doesn't. For example a Brownian motion, apart from making graphs that look like stock prices, has certain mathematical properties which it shares with the stock prices themselves. However, in some cases these properties do not match up, and in those cases one makes a judgment of whether the model is good enough or should be somehow refined.

But I realized there is an important difference between the stock price model and the MBTI: The stock price one contains very few theoretical statements (to be precise, 6 simple and unambiguous statements will completely define the whole model), and it generates a vast sea of empirical statements. Whereas for the MBTI, the number of statements in its "theory" is about the same as in the empirical statements it makes. Think for example about how many words and examples are spent describing what introversion is.

Hence it seems that MBTI is of the variety which only notes down observations. I think it is clear what one calls such a model: taxonomy. Which is not necessarily bad, because that has a certain utility. But to call it science, or even "soft science", I think is not justified.

You're pretty much totally misunderstanding one of the the main differences (if not the main difference) between soft sciences (most of psychology, the other social sciences, economics, etc.) and hard sciences.

You didn't answer my question. Is it pseudoscience if a psychologist or social scientist is talking about the fact (among other things) that evolution seems to have created a biological male category and a biological female category, and that, as a matter of probability, biological males tend to be sexually attracted to biological females?

 

[Tannhauser]

You're pretty much totally misunderstanding one of the the main differences (if not the main difference) between soft sciences (most of psychology, the other social sciences, economics, etc.) and hard sciences.

You didn't answer my question. Is it pseudoscience if a psychologist or social scientist is talking about the fact (among other things) that evolution seems to have created a biological male category and a biological female category, and that, as a matter of probability, biological males tend to be sexually attracted to biological females?

I don't really know why you think the word "soft science" bears any meaning. If that allows you to include economics as a part of that category, then we can conclusively say that it has nothing to do with science. To me, there is science, models, taxonomy, and mere observation. What is "soft science"?

I believe I have already answered your question. The rephrasing you have presented here (to make it sound slightly more sciency), is not really different. When "social scientists" (who probably invented the term "soft science") are "talking about" that evolution "seems to have created" males and females who are for the most part attracted to each other, that is just another observation. I am not sure how to otherwise interpret this question.

Imagine you see a specimen of a certain species lay an egg, and ask "why does it lay an egg, whereas other animals give birth to their offspring without a shell?". If the answer is "because it is a bird", is that science? I hope we can agree that is just taxonomy. I believe this is what MBTI amounts to. Or to be precise – the useful parts of MBTI.

 

[reckful]

I don't really know why you think the word "soft science" bears any meaning. If that allows you to include economics as a part of that category, then we can conclusively say that it has nothing to do with science. To me, there is science, models, taxonomy, and mere observation. What is "soft science"?

I believe I have already answered your question. The rephrasing you have presented here (to make it sound slightly more sciency), is not really different. When "social scientists" (who probably invented the term "soft science") are "talking about" that evolution "seems to have created" males and females who are for the most part attracted to each other, that is just another observation. I am not sure how to otherwise interpret this question.

Imagine you see a specimen of a certain species lay an egg, and ask "why does it lay an egg, whereas other animals give birth to their offspring without a shell?". If the answer is "because it is a bird", is that science? I hope we can agree that is just taxonomy. I believe this is what MBTI amounts to. Or to be precise – the useful parts of MBTI.

All you're doing is playing tiresome semantic games, Tannheuser.

Dave can concoct a "taxonomy" of personality types based on the zodiac.

Bob can develop a "taxonomy" of personality dimensions based on thousands of studies (including twin studies), analyzed and "validated" (that's the technical term) by means of modern psychometric standards.

Whether you're fond of the term "soft science" or not, it's widely used to apply to activities like Bob's (as well as what most respectable academic and theory-oriented psychologists, social scientists and economists, among others, do) to represent the fact that such sciences differ in certain important respects from the "hard sciences," while also adhering to scientific standards to the extent feasible, given the inherent nature of the subject under study — and are therefore very different from Dave's activities.

And much of what "soft scientists" do involves theoretical models that are sufficiently abstracted from the concrete data that "taxonomy" is not a particularly apt term to use to describe those models.

 

[Brontosaurie]

How about a biologist talking about that same fact?

Seems strange not to count statistical knowledge as part of the scientific process and science proper, especially when the statistics point to a mechanism that is of theoretical interest. Reproducibility isn't really a concern. It's clearly possible to test a statistical hypothesis such as this one experimentally, or for that matter - and more importantly - use it as a portal to questions that can be converted into hypotheses.

Observation is a step in the classic scientific method. For this reason, it's simply incorrect to dismiss something as "not science, just observation". Sure, you may criticize the scientific method. But you need a good argument for excluding observation from scientific practice - or even denying that its compilation and interpretation, however trivial, may suffice to constitute a scientific result.

Is this at all what you're really discussing though? If i were to throw my cents, i'd throw them at "intuition bias". You seem to have a wild drive to abstract things, sometimes for the good purpose of simplification and sometimes unwittingly to the effect of needlessly complicating things. In order to provoke reckful as well, i will type you a Ti dominant.

It is easy to forget the hands-on of science when digging deep in epistemology. However, one must remember that epistemology is to science what music theory is to music. It is a formalization, arguably a special case of a following. Its overt purpose may be to understand music/science and feedback on it (symbiosis), but the real function is profiting on its allure (parasitism). Music/science does its progress irregardless of theoretical following. That being said i'm not dissing some epistemology. I think it's a highly worthwhile subject for anyone to explore.

 

[Tannhauser]

All you're doing is playing tiresome semantic games, Tannheuser.

Dave can concoct a "taxonomy" of personality types based on the zodiac.

Bob can develop a "taxonomy" of personality dimensions based on thousands of studies (including twin studies), analyzed and "validated" (that's the technical term) by means of modern psychometric standards.

Whether you're fond of the term "soft science" or not, it's widely used to apply to activities like Bob's (as well as what most respectable academic and theory-oriented psychologists, social scientists and economists, among others, do) to represent the fact that such sciences differ in certain important respects from the "hard sciences," while also adhering to scientific standards to the extent feasible, given the inherent nature of the subject under study — and are therefore very different from Dave's activities.

And much of what "soft scientists" do involves theoretical models that are sufficiently abstracted from the concrete data that "taxonomy" is not a particularly apt term to use to describe those models.

Well, I wasn't trying to make the point that all of the various fields which you include in the category of "soft science" are just taxonomies. I agree, for example, that some of them use mathematical models which have reasonable utility. But what does it help to include MBTI in that category? I don't see how this elevates MBTI to any level of science (instead, you are just expanding the class of "soft science"). For example, in the context of models, what is the "model" aspect of MBTI? What concepts does it contain which are not collections of observations?

 

[Black Rose]

Well, I wasn't trying to make the point that all of the various fields which you include in the category of "soft science" are just taxonomies. I agree, for example, that some of them use mathematical models which have reasonable utility. But what does it help to include MBTI in that category? I don't see how this elevates MBTI to any level of science (instead, you are just expanding the class of "soft science"). For example, in the context of models, what is the "model" aspect of MBTI? What concepts does it contain which are not collections of observations?

If we could find the biological mechanisms of Introversion and Extroversion we could understand how the four functions come from them based on the inhibition mechanism in different brain regions. This concept would be slimier to how the polarity of electricity is positive and negative. Introversion and Extroversion would come from different regions of the cortex and limbic systems that interact through suppression or excitation. Also how individuals in relationships and other environmental reinforcements condition each type of brain. Each type would be different because of people of the same type would share a symmetry that they do not share with other types. Thus we could find out how accurate MBTI observations are at finding these symmetries.

 

[Tannhauser]

How about a biologist talking about that same fact?

Seems strange not to count statistical knowledge as part of the scientific process and science proper, especially when the statistics point to a mechanism that is of theoretical interest. Reproducibility isn't really a concern. It's clearly possible to test a statistical hypothesis such as this one experimentally, or for that matter - and more importantly - use it as a portal to questions that can be converted into hypotheses.

Observation is a step in the classic scientific method. For this reason, it's simply incorrect to dismiss something as "not science, just observation". Sure, you may criticize the scientific method. But you need a good argument for excluding observation from scientific practice - or even denying that its compilation and interpretation, however trivial, may suffice to constitute a scientific result.

Is this at all what you're really discussing though? If i were to throw my cents, i'd throw them at "intuition bias". You seem to have a wild drive to abstract things, sometimes for the good purpose of simplification and sometimes unwittingly to the effect of needlessly complicating things. In order to provoke reckful as well, i will type you a Ti dominant.

It is easy to forget the hands-on of science when digging deep in epistemology. However, one must remember that epistemology is to science what music theory is to music. It is a formalization, arguably a special case of a following. Its overt purpose may be to understand music/science and feedback on it (symbiosis), but the real function is profiting on its allure (parasitism). Music/science does its progress irregardless of theoretical following. That being said i'm not dissing some epistemology. I think it's a highly worthwhile subject for anyone to explore.

I disagree with most of this, Bronto (possibly except that I have a wild drive to abstraction). I think the purpose of making a clear distinction between science and non-science has a enormous utility – it is not just for the sake of creating definitions in the dictionary, it is for the sake of identifying what is useful, what progresses knowledge, and what impedes it.

Will science just evolve regardless of a meta-analysis of what science is? I'm not so sure about that. One should remember that it's been 300 years since the Enlightenment – when we rediscovered the ancient Greeks after a 1000-year slumber. Without Popper defining science as falsifiability 50 years ago, psychology academics would probably still teach Freud's theories as "science".

 

[bvanevery]

Read a chunk of this, then felt TL;DR, so I'm gonna cut to the chase. Try "getting into it" with someone in some forum somewhere, who really doesn't like you. Do this for awhile, like a month or two. You're going to have a lot of data on this person, and you're going to start making some pretty informed guesses about their type. You may not ever know for sure, but as an operational model, "Why is this happening, again?" it's hard to be wrong.

I think this whole discussion is borne of some premise of looking at someone else's behaviror, say, once. But if you've seen them do the same things hundreds of times, and you know your own type and how your own behaviors are feeding that person... sorry, just don't think the inductive leap is all that much to make. Call it what it is.

How many times does someone have to take something personally, for you to notice a Thinker vs. Feeler conflict?

How many times has a SJ torn you a new one?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Have you ever studied psychology? Take a term called psychosis. Do you know how they diagnose a person with psychosis? There are some definitive ways of knowing if someone has it or not. However if a hypochondriac were to fake psychosis a doctor would have no way knowing it was faked. As long as the hypochondriac would fake the psychosis according to what doctors know as psychosis then it would mean the hypochondirac would be diagnosed with psychosis. And he would get treatment for psychosis despite the fact he doesnt have it.
The definition of psychosis is on wikipedia. Here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

So what does that tell you. Well first of if someone acts like psychotic he is defacto considered psychotic. Psychosis is defined as loss of contact with reality. So if you act like you lost contact with reality you are considered psychotic.
But does the doctor have a defnitive proof? Absolutely not!
But does that mean there is no utility in diagnosing people as psychotic? NO!
First of a person that is diagnosed as psychotic needs treatment and that person which doesnt get treatment gets worse over time. So there is a good reason why people are diagnosed with psychosis. It comes with experience, not with a scientific proof. If psychotic people in hospitals would be let loose and left with no medication many would commit suicide and many others would simply harm themselves eventually or be unable to work.
It came with experience that psychotic people put on antipsychotic medication were less likely to commit suicide despite the fact that the medication they are given can have suicidal side effects. They are better of stable with meds then unstable with no meds. This is all exprience and there is nothing to prove it other than experience. No one really knows what is happening in the brain of a psychotic person.

Much same way MBTI works and has utility despite no one has any proof or even knows what is happening in the brain of different people. We however have experience and thus can say that if someone behaves as a extrovert is probably extroverted and if someone behaves introverted and thus we can say is introverted and so on...
Much same way we can analyse dynamics of introverted people and extroverted people.
Jung analyzed people for living. He did it all the time. He simply had experience and thus from experience was able to erect a model of personality. Much same way we on everyday basis judge peoples character depending on how they behave. There is no scientific proof in terms of science as we know it in math, physics, chemistry or biology, but it still has utility. If someone points a loaded gun at me and says it was just for fun it does speak about the persons character. I have no proof , other than he pointing the gun at me, that the person is reckless and dangerous, but I know the person from experience so I adjust my behaviour accordingly. So does it have utility? Absolutly does. Do we have proof? No. But there is data and experience and that is what is profitable.

 

[Auburn]

@Tannhauser - From what I'm getting... to you, the chemist who goes in his lab and performs experiments to find a metal's property (such as the melting point) isn't doing science, they're just "observing" and "documenting"

To me that's science. Even if he doesn't yet know why it melts at precisely that temperature (re: theory/underlying-cause) it's still science and figuring out the underlying cause would come next.

Taking note of the fact that "every time I drop a coin into the well, it takes 10 seconds to hit the water" is a documentation which is scientific. It can be tested and repeated with more coins.

Then a hypothesis is formed saying "the well must be ___ feet deep", which is indeed part of the scientific process. A good hypothesis but not unfalsifiable. Something could be slowing the coin on the way down (like spider webs) to make it seem deeper than it is. A flashlight comes next, to verify.

But what I mean to point out is that science isn't just the end result, it's all components involved: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation and finally Theory/Model building. Then more of the same, to get at a better Theory/Model for explaining the observations we see.

 

[Architect]

I thought about the following: why is it that people think they can infer preferences and functions from behavioral traits? Does not the theory go the other way around – that you deduce behavioral traits from preference and functions?

If that sounds like nitpickery, note that it would amount to confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A". In other words, the mistake would be to go from saying "If you have preference P, you will have trait T", to thinking that you can say "If you have trait T, you have preference P". It is the same as going from "All candies are sweet" to "All sweet things are candies"

You're getting at symmetry. The universe generally likes symmetry, but it doesn't hold everywhere at all times. Encryption is symmetric. You can take plaintext, encrypt to cyphertext which is indistinguishable from noise (truly indistinguishable), and back to plaintext (with the proper magic). Breaking a plate isn't symmetric. You can smash your crockery into dust, and can't take that back the other way to get the original plate back. 1-1, 1-N, N-1 or N-N?

MBTI isn't a mathematical theory so your analogy doesn't apply, plus demands a greater level of precision than the theory allows us. So, a function gives rise to many potential behaviors and thus is 1-N. A behavior can be ascribed to many functions (e.g. talking loudly could be Ne (excited about an idea) or Fe (yelling at your kid)), thus is N-1. So the theory is N-N.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I thought about the following: why is it that people think they can infer preferences and functions from behavioral traits? Does not the theory go the other way around – that you deduce behavioral traits from preference and functions?

If that sounds like nitpickery, note that it would amount to confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A". In other words, the mistake would be to go from saying "If you have preference P, you will have trait T", to thinking that you can say "If you have trait T, you have preference P". It is the same as going from "All candies are sweet" to "All sweet things are candies"

If you have a Thinking preference you will have the trait of thinking too much(har har).

Are you expecting something more like this:

If your Thinking is focused outward the person retains an incessant need to turn every thing around them into a self-interested scheme or otherwise maintains at all costs their personal autonomy and will implement plans to control others should their autonomy or authority be threatened, in present or future-imagined situations. Thus this type of thinking is connected to Freudian anal retentiveness, or obsessive-compulsiveness, a need for control. The ability to see people at objects, to be used as a means or the obstacle preventing a goal, renders the type susceptible to antisocial/sociopath traits.

On a more positive note, there is a heightened awareness of the rationality of actions and a proclivity to reject base cultural influences that serve as seductive distractions in the face of real progress and self-improvement. Their preoccupied thinking can manifest as productive workaholism with a true joy from seeing accomplishment and success in others.

?