Believing in INTP is no different then believing in God.

[roby]

We all use something to keep sanity in check. Sure religious people are inspired, ambitious, and motivated from their beliefs. The rewards for illusive thinking seem logical to most people, it's just "easier" to adapt to your surroundings.

What I'm trying to get at here, is do you doubt everything you believe? some answers are just way to far out to grab. And second guessing everything can be really mentally un-healthy.

 

[Firehazard159]

Most INTP's do doubt the full on straight forward validity of MBTI, though it clearly has some valuable attributes. MBTI is misused and misunderstood often times, as well.

I'll have to disagree with your post title, I also don't really see much correlation between your title and your post o.O

Edit: In a sense, believing in any philosophy or psychology is paralleled with believing in God because they're all abstractions, but there the similarities end. Some could abuse it to the point of it being the same as believing in God, but, well anyone can do that with anything.

(If it's not an abstraction, it's because it's become a solid science rather than simply existing in the realm of thought and speculation)

 

[chloé]

MBTI just makes some generalizations, some people fit certain profiles better than others, and I'm sure every one of us has qualities that are uncharacteristic of INTP's. It seems to be quite a good system though, in my opinion. Certainly not something to put complete faith in.

I "doubt" everything, but not to the point of cynicism or paranoia. I keep a point in the back of my mind that anything I feel sure of has the potential to actually be something else. I don't ever assume a commonly held view without investigation, and I question my own thoughts and always try to identify my true motives. I see it as a skill to finely tune.

As for things like MBTI, i.e. categorizing yourself, I'm a bit obsessed with that and can sometimes get too excited when I find something that appears to "explain everything". I do tend to lose rational self-judgement in those times.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

What I'm trying to get at here, is do you doubt everything you believe? some answers are just way to far out to grab. And second guessing everything can be really mentally un-healthy.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Though I disagree with above quote entirely.

 

[roby]

M
I'll have to disagree with your post title, I also don't really see much correlation between your title and your post o.O

)

Yes I apologize for that, it sounded to me like it made sense at the time.

 

[nickgray]

MBTI is not accurate, it doesn't predict behavior, but it does make some generalizations that a quite a lot of people agree about. Obviously, no sane person should take it too seriously and/or live by MBTI.

I won't even bother with the god analogy. It's simply ridiculous, to say the least.

 

[roby]

MBTI is not accurate, it doesn't predict behavior, but it does make some generalizations that a quite a lot of people agree about. Obviously, no sane person should take it too seriously and/or live by MBTI.

I won't even bother with the god analogy. It's simply ridiculous, to say the least.

Actually a person with INTP would take it seriously out of all, if someone is interested in physcology I could see them vigorously studying flaws in MBTI.

 

[nickgray]

I could see them vigorously studying flaws in MBTI.

The flaws are rather obvious. From Forer effect, to anectodal evidence presented in MBTI. AFAIR, nobody in the field of psychology (that deals with this kind of stuff) would study MBTI seriously. Still, on average some parts of MBTI make sense.

Actually a person with INTP would take it seriously out of all

Well, an INTP wouldn't take it seriously because he won't stop at MBTI, his NT should drive him to learn a bit more about the whole analytical psychology thingy and only then he'll consider whether MBTI (or similar concepts) should be taken seriously or not.

 

[roby]

The flaws are rather obvious. From Forer effect, to anectodal evidence presented in MBTI. AFAIR, nobody in the field of psychology (that deals with this kind of stuff) would study MBTI seriously. Still, on average some parts of MBTI make sense.



Well, an INTP wouldn't take it seriously because he won't stop at MBTI, his NT should drive him to learn a bit more about the whole analytical psychology thingy and only then he'll consider whether MBTI (or similar concepts) should be taken seriously or not.

Yes well, I didn't get into specifics there.

Also I just made a very similar post before I read yours. =P
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=130355#post130355

the close characteristics still surprise me.

 

[Da Blob]

Actually I do not see the analogy as being inappropriate. We all wish to know the answer to certain questions: "Who am I?", "What am I?", "How am I?", "Where am I? etc.

INTPians are amongst the group of people that question the stock answers to those questions provided by society-at-large and seek to find their own answers. It is a matter of identity formation.

The relationship one forms with one's god, generally, provides the answers to many of those same questions. One IS ______ as One IS defined by One's god. Therefore. I have stated on a number of occasions that when a person's god is discounted, that person is discounted as well. And on the grander scale, Discounting Humanity's God discounts all of Humanity and the Humanities...

One can use the MBTI as a part of one's identity formation is a manner similar to using God to do the same...

 

[Zero]

It's hard to function when one is constantly in disbelief. I think, therefore I am and I believe in what manifests itself.

INTP is just a title we give to collection of behaviors, like all the traits are. The usefulness of typology and analytical psychology is subjective. I use it, therefore it is useful to me. But the qualities of being any MBTI type are manifested. They are manifested in personality and certain re-occurring traits.

Most people accept Stereotypes for re-occurring personality traits. Stereotypes are a collection of vague traits. If someone displays certain traits consistently we might call them a ditz, a nerd, an asshole, a gold digger, a bitch, uppity, etc...

God/s is/are a vague concept that does not manifest. What exactly is God? God is an undefinable everything and nothing. When we look at the Bible, for example, God use to be very human like, it's only through centuries of transition and translation that we've made him this "universe" being that has no exact definition or manifestation.

To atheists, God has enough manifestation to be a fictional character. He has the same amount of manifestation as Santa Claus.

INTP is a specific sort of stereotype that is supposedly based on a more logical structure and more consistency than random stereotypes.

God is a vague being who has no manifestation. Gods are hardly definable.

There is a huge difference between a metaphysical concept of a being that can't be defined as anything other than "god" and a stereotype based on re-occurring personality traits.

 

[Da Blob]

So it becomes a valid metaphor instead of a valid analogy. The point stands, Identity formation can be based on any number of factors one ascribes the word, Mine, to...

 

[Zero]

I was replying to the first post and the title in case that wasn't clear.

 

[dopigsfly123]

In the words of Commander Data (yes, i'm a geek), I believe you're reasoning through analogy. Just because neither phenomenon has been scientifically verified does not necessarily make them similar.

Religion (I.E. a belief in "god") commits one to a belief in metaphysical phenomena. MBTI is not metaphysical. It is evaluated through a series of (Pseudo)scientific tests. In that regard, the two could not be more different (and I believe that alone breaks the analogy).

Without weighing in on the relative merits of specific religions, I would have to point out that metaphysical beliefs are inconsistent with the basics of critical thinking and the scientific method. Metaphysical "hypotheses" are not falsifiable, not replicable (in the experimental sense), and violate Occams Razor.

I would not contend, of course, that MBTI has been proven. In fact, I choose to approach it with a certain degree of skepticism. Precise adherence to any deterministic philosophy could ultimately result in a self fulfilling prophecy; that MBTI has achieved such a large internet following worries me. Don't let anything, including religion, limit you.

 

[fullerene]

Actually.... as much as I disagree with the OP, I'm pretty sure (though I've done limited research, so I don't know how firm a connection it is) that MBTI was very metaphysical in nature. Carl Jung developed things called Jungian Archetypes based on a belief in the collective unconscious. I thought that this then gave rise to the cognitive functions, but in the first few pages of google I couldn't find anything saying it specifically. This site said, pertaining to the collective unconscious, that "Jung postulates that the mind of the infant already possesses a structure that molds and channels all further development and interaction with the environment." -- which certainly sounds like the MBTI-purist ("you can't change your type, it takes more energy to use functions which aren't your native ones, etc") talk to me. Words like "shadow" (as in 'shadow functions'?) also pop up in Jung's archetypes, though I'm not sure if they're the same concepts.


I know that work has also been done to connect MBTI types to the Jungian Archetypes.


So... I'm pretty sure that that's just false. MBTI is very metaphysical, at least at its roots.
...though I still disagree with the idea that believing in INTP is like believing in God. Or at least, I would say that "like" is too vague of a description to mean anything at all. Lots of things are like each other in some ways and different in others. I'm "like" my roommate in that we're both human, but certainly not like him in that I'm not too concerned with staying in shape or exercising, while he is. It just needs better defining to respond to.

 

[dieserotefrosch]

Think of me as agnostic theist. I used my INTP advantage in religion, particularly Christianity. Religion for me is science, for doubts even existed in the scientific world, so in religion as well.

 

[echoplex]

We all use something to keep sanity in check.

Well, I hope this isn't the main reason people believe they're an INTP, or any other type. I don't really think it's a great reason to believe in God either, although I don't doubt belief can help keep some people sane.

What I'm trying to get at here, is do you doubt everything you believe? some answers are just way to far out to grab. And second guessing everything can be really mentally un-healthy.

I tend to doubt just about everything, risking insanity all the while. One similarity between God belief and MBTI belief is that I don't suppose you can prove either to be real beyond a doubt. I can't really prove I'm an INTP; I'm not even sure if I'm an NT, but it seems the most likely bet given what I know about the theory and what I know about myself.

INTERESTING IDEA (Ne mode): What if each type had their own heaven and hell in the afterlife? What if types must develop their inferior function to be eligible for heaven? Would INTP hell then be an eternity where you could only use Ti? Would heaven be absolute acceptance from others? Is God Jung? Who is Satan? Probably Freud, right? Why am I asking all of these questions?

 

[dopigsfly123]

Actually.... as much as I disagree with the OP, I'm pretty sure (though I've done limited research, so I don't know how firm a connection it is) that MBTI was very metaphysical in nature. Carl Jung developed things called Jungian Archetypes based on a belief in the collective unconscious. I thought that this then gave rise to the cognitive functions, but in the first few pages of google I couldn't find anything saying it specifically. This site said, pertaining to the collective unconscious, that "Jung postulates that the mind of the infant already possesses a structure that molds and channels all further development and interaction with the environment." -- which certainly sounds like the MBTI-purist ("you can't change your type, it takes more energy to use functions which aren't your native ones, etc") talk to me. Words like "shadow" (as in 'shadow functions'?) also pop up in Jung's archetypes, though I'm not sure if they're the same concepts.

I'll defer to your judgment on that, as my knowledge of psychology is pretty rudimentary (political scientist over here lol). But I still believe that there is a demonstrable difference between MBTI, an at least quasi-scientific phenomenon that people have made a reasonable attempt to quantify, and a "belief in god". However tenuous the evidence for MBTI, I wouldn't call it theological.

Perhaps i'm misunderstanding the context of your quote, but the statement

Jung postulates that the mind of the infant already possesses a structure that molds and channels all further development and interaction with the environment

sounds more like a reasonable hypothesis than a metaphysical claim. Yes, it smacks of determinism, but that doesn't necessarily mean its completely wrong. Certain behaviors and practices, in fact, have been proved to be ingrained in the human psyche...even in infancy.

Finally, even if MBTI was originally based in notions of the collective unconcious, that doesn't necessarily mean its current incarnation has any association with those notions whatsoever. Can we say the same for religion?

 

[fullerene]

yeah, that's very true. Anything with observable evidence does eventually get gobbled up by science. However, I actually thought most real psychologists didn't take mbti too seriously simply because the testing was giving very spotty results. I know most psychology classes never mention it at least... and have heard it used more by workplaces trying to figure out how to place employees and stuff.

But yeah, it's definitely not theological, which is one of the reasons I still disagree with the title of the thread. You've really gotta define what "like" means. And yes, Jung's postulate that the mind of the infant already possesses a certain structure is like a hypothesis more than a metaphysical claim... I thought I said that that was a pretty weak link, but maybe I didn't. I just meant to say that it sounds a lot like a hypothesis that was spawned by his metaphysical beliefs in the collective unconscious, but couldn't find anything more clearly linking his psychology and metaphysical beliefs in the first few pages of a google search than that.

 

[Eef]

If a person were to ask me if I believe in God, I'll say I do. If I need more proof I'll just consult the bible.

 

[Words]

monotheistic here.. I don't know...my great intuition sees something greater than mere scientific capacities!! i guess God gives me possibilities that transcends physics + laws. who's an atheist?