I'm an ENTP

[Happy]

Welcome

 

[Urakro]

Check out this description:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/entp-description.php

That's got to be the most barnummy paragraph I've read.

"ENTP's are playful, but sometimes serious and stern. They are amiable, but will also come across very cold and abrasive. ENTP's don't like shaving, but you might see a bunch of them do it just because. Some ENTP's are good at math, but may not have had the full chance of developing it. ENTP's usually get very successful jobs, though they may not hold them long enough to realize it. ,etc"

 

[Happy]

That's got to be the most barnummy paragraph I've read.

"ENTP's are playful, but sometimes serious and stern. They are amiable, but will also come across very cold and abrasive. ENTP's don't like shaving, but you might see a bunch of them do it just because. Some ENTP's are good at math, but may not have had the full chance of developing it. ENTP's usually get very successful jobs, though they may not hold them long enough to realize it. ,etc"

Lolol this is actually a scary accurate description of me

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Coming from a Socionics background I agree NeTi can be argumentative, in truth there's been several self proclaimed ENTPs here who were, but it seems people here are seeing more than just that to type you as what I guess is ISTJ? Which I think is half funny, mbti has a problem with using istj as the dumping ground for things they don't like, in part because Si has limited dimension (tradition, stubbornness, past) which is honestly dumb and Keirsey's SJ temperaments presents them as the most unimaginative.

edit: more often than not though I think entp is typically trollish/playful even when argumentative

 

[The Gopher]

gopher type me pls


is this sarcasm or is it really a forum consensus? not that i've seen much of cognisant but he/she doesnt strike me as entp

Um why? Also you're like a person. Who does person things. I don't think you're extroverted enough to form easy to see patterns I would need to talk to you in person.

I am taking everyone's opinion into account. I think what people see on here is my love of debating and arguing. It's very difficult apparently for ENTPs to admit they're wrong, and I think that's why I hold fast to my opinions. JH Van der Hoop explicitly stated that egoism is a big danger for this type, that they are ego-centric and also impulsive. I've been accused of being very "reactive" on here, and obviously, when someone tells me I'm wrong, it doesn't go over so well with me. ENTPs are after all one of the most highly represented types among lawyers. Actually the specific numbers are as follows:

Whatever. It's not worth my time to talk about her intentions.

That's a good argument. However just because ENTP's like argument doesn't mean other types don't. (AKA PROXY COME BACK TO US TALK ECONOMICS TO ME) *cough* A trait I would say ENTP's are better at than most is playing devils advocate. So how about I call you an ENTP/INTP and you try to refute me?

Also fair to your second point, however if it's not worth your time to talk about her intentions why did you talk about her intentions. You basically said this is pointless don't say this, but when given reasons why it might not be pointless said idc it's pointless and I don't have time to discuss it. Which is the exact crime you accused her of in the beginning. Arguably she did start the cycle of theoretical pointlessness however there must be a point to it or neither of you would have done anything.

Also I now agree with the theory that the point to Jenny's post was more inline with what that one guy said about asking others why they cared. (That said this is really pointless now you have no need to reply to this part)

 

[Inquisitor]

That's a good argument. However just because ENTP's like argument doesn't mean other types don't. (AKA PROXY COME BACK TO US TALK ECONOMICS TO ME) *cough* A trait I would say ENTP's are better at than most is playing devils advocate. So how about I call you an ENTP/INTP and you try to refute me?

Nowhere in the foundational works is there any mention of an ambivert. I know it's a popular postulate of many, but the fact is that there's no theoretical basis for it whatsoever. A lot of ENTPs I've seen in forum posts like to call themselves a mix of these two types, but actually they're just ENTPs. From what I've read many ENTPs mistype themselves as INTPs but the converse isn't true as often. The best test in my opinion is how the individual was as a child. If they were shy and withdrawn, that's INTP, and that's also what the early theorists state. Outgoing/social on the other hand is usually indicative of an extravert. There must always be a single dominant function. Otherwise if there are two equally dominant functions, then can the first function really be called dominant after all? I'm open to the possibility that the auxiliary is more or less conscious, and part of pscyhoanalysis is apparently to develop the auxiliary. But this is much different from saying someone is an "ambivert."

Agreed that many types like to argue. I do it with myself even when no one is around

Also fair to your second point, however if it's not worth your time to talk about her intentions why did you talk about her intentions. You basically said this is pointless don't say this, but when given reasons why it might not be pointless said idc it's pointless and I don't have time to discuss it. Which is the exact crime you accused her of in the beginning. Arguably she did start the cycle of theoretical pointlessness however there must be a point to it or neither of you would have done anything.

Also I now agree with the theory that the point to Jenny's post was more inline with what that one guy said about asking others why they cared. (That said this is really pointless now you have no need to reply to this part)

 

[reckful]

Nowhere in the foundational works is there any mention of an ambivert.

Puh-leeeze. As you and I have discussed at length (starting here), Jung viewed his eight types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, while also declaring that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and characterizing those ambiverts as "the normal man." And Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. So the idea of middleness on one or more dimensions goes all the way back to the MBTI's theoretical roots.

You're free to disagree with as many "foundational works" as you like, of course, but declaring that "nowhere in the foundational works is there any mention of an ambivert" is freaking ridiculous, unless you're just meaning to make the trivial semantic point that they didn't use the exact term "ambivert" to refer to the people in Jung's "middle group," who he said were neither extraverts nor introverts, and who he said were more common than either extraverts or introverts.

 

[Inquisitor]

Puh-leeeze. As you and I have discussed at length (starting here), Jung viewed his eight types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, while also declaring that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and characterizing those ambiverts as "the normal man." And Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. So the idea of middleness on one or more dimensions goes all the way back to the MBTI's theoretical roots.

You're free to disagree with as many "foundational works" as you like, of course, but declaring that "nowhere in the foundational works is there any mention of an ambivert" is freaking ridiculous, unless you're just meaning to make the trivial semantic point that they didn't use the exact term "ambivert" to refer to the people in Jung's "middle group," who he said were neither extraverts nor introverts, and who he said were more common than either extraverts or introverts.

Your interpretation reckful, but you're wrong. You're taking that one line and extrapolating it to mean Jung thought most people's top two functions were equally well-developed. You're ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as introversion and extraversion, only introverted and extraverted functions. If you don't believe in the functions, then that's your problem, and you can limit yourself to the MBTI dichotomies. I feel compelled to point out to you that not a few people disagree with your assessment, including the well-known CelebrityTypes site, which I'm sure you've seen. I may be mistaken, but I think the guy who runs that site is an INTJ as well. He seems to be very well-read, why did he come to a completely different conclusion? Have you ever asked yourself that?

In any case, your argument basically comes down to a few lines of text Psychological Types that you've creatively interpreted, and you also creatively interpreted the MBTI manual:

The MBTI manual says this about low scores: (slightly modified wording)
"When preference scores are 'slight' (1-9) the respondent has essentially split the vote. Low scores are often associated with a sense of tension between the poles of the low preference."

"Respondents will sometimes interpret the low scores as advantageous, interpreting the score to mean they have a good command of both preferences (either are comfortable). In reality, low scores are more often a reflection of tension between the opposite poles of the preference than an indication of excellence in both."

https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-interpret-an-MBTI-score-that-does-not-indicate-any-particular-type

I don't have the actual book, so I'm relying on what this person said, but you tell me if she has it wrong. "Tension" between the poles = confusion, not ambiversion. So actually, there goes another one of your arguments down the drain. So yes, I feel confident in declaring that "ambiversion" is not possible. You apparently have not understood that this whole business is non-behaviorist. It's about cognitive orientation. Behavior can and does fluctuate widely but cognition does not. Behavior is contingent on upbringing and environment. Cognition is not. Behavior can make an introvert think they are an extravert and vice versa. This doesn't mean the underlying cognitive process has changed, let alone that the individual is equally introverted and extraverted. Introspection is not the same thing as introversion. An extravert can be very introspective, and an introvert can be very outgoing for a time. If your job requires you to be someone you're not for an extended period of time, you might very well split the vote on the test. But again...not ambiversion. I maintain there's nothing in any typology text that makes an argument for ambiversion. I asked you to "show me the money" last time we spoke and you were unable to do so. I assume you're bringing this up again just b/c you're still pissed about that.

 

[Hadoblado]

This was absolutely not to bait a response. It was a purely a notification. I did not "invite speculation" as to my type. Here's what that would sound like:

"Hey guys, I think I might be an ENTP but I'm not sure, what do you think?"

Here's what I said:

"Turns out I'm not an INTP. Thought you guys should know."

Do ya see the difference? If you want to disagree, that's fine, but your evidence is pretty flimsy as pmjpmj rightly pointed out. Did it ever occur to you that inferior Si would be responsible for obsessiveness? I guess not.

I like everything and am interested in everything. Hence the (probably misguided) motivation to narrow down the possibilities.

Okay. Sorry. To me that doesn't add up (the notifying thing), but you might be abnormal in this respect so I'll take you at your word.

I didn't mean any disrespect. I just see the ENTP claim as patently false, and figure it would be more disrespectful to not saying anything. Like when someone has food stuck in their beard or something. I could have been more tactful. This could be more tactful.

The position I'm in is that if I were to type you, I'd conclude ISTJ. But as someone mentioned, that's a dumping ground for everything people don't like about others. I don't mean it as a bad thing, but given the social connotations, I would be impressed if anyone took it well. FYI I like ISTJs IRL so long as they're not my boss. But I don't want to prove you ISTJ, I don't think that's doable, or useful. I would like to overthrow the ENTP conclusion, because that seems like even more of a stretch than INTP, and it's a lot easier than narrowing you down to a single type.

Thank-you for deescalating.

I'm not going to beat around the bush. It's difficult to talk about something as personal as type without repeating niceties. I don't mean to offend, I just mean what I say.

Let's start.

1) Who on this forum do you perceive as ENTP? Names that come to mind as self-identifying ENTPs include TimeAsylums, TheHabitatDoctor, Cognisant, Yellow, Cheese(?), Cheeseumpuffs(?), ENTPlurker, TheScornedReflex, others I've missed. Do you think any of these people are ENTP? Which ones? Why? What do you have in common with them?

One common thread they have is shit posting

That is to say, they jump in the arena and like to make big fluffy imaginative posts about sweet nothings, almost practicing just how much they can puff up a non-event. It's all in good fun, it's a means of socialisation etc. You don't do this much iirc? I don't do it too much either honestly.

2) You don't like arguing. The actual act of arguing tires you and can push you to snapping. Yes you argue, mostly because your beliefs are called into questions. Your arguing almost always has a defensive positioning. Let me illustrate:

Inquisitor: positive claim
Other people: we disagree
Inquisitor: precedes to defend claim

Like this thread for example.

ENTPs tend to not like being tied down to one position. They like to argue, and arguing is better facilitated by waiting for other people to make positive claims, then assuming one of the many positions they can think of to best create conflict. If I were looking for people who actually enjoyed arguing, I'd look for contrarians with a fluidity to their world-view. You argue more like an INTJ, who is more than happy to just tell you the way they see things, and willing to argue to the end of the earth, but it's more about their confidence in their own perceptions than a genuine kick from arguing.

Example:

Do you know this guy in Real Life™?

Are you a qualified practitioner with at least a degree in psychology?

If not, kindly shut the fuck up.

turns into

No, this isn't how it works. You're meant to get pissy with me, and then engage me in an exchange of insults which start off reasonably witty, but eventually (and inevitably) descend into 'your mum' jokes.

This reasonable / reasoned response will not suffice.

I fart in your general direction.

I'm not making any claims about pmjpmj, but see how fluid they are? Trying to make an argument happen, and unphased by the argument not happening. There's a detachment there. They tried and it didn't happen, so they just shift gears. Fluid.

ENTPs aren't soldiers for a cause, they're mercenaries paid in the currency of how smug winning makes them feel. They choose their battles. I share this characteristic, I don't think you do. Your arguing reeks of integrity as if you actually believe the things you say.

3.2) Multiple times in the past you've refused to listen to people based on their lack of authority. This is a very unENTP thing to do. If you like arguing, it doesn't matter so much who you're arguing with. You've discounted people's views based on age and what books they've read. I'm not making a value judgement here. But if you enjoyed arguing, you wouldn't be looking for ways to dismiss like this. You'd look for ways to win.

3) I'd like to hear what Reckful and Archie have to say on your type. I'd wager at best for your conclusion, they'll fail to rule out the possibility you're ENTP. I mention these people specifically because you've listened to them in the past, acknowledging their authority to some degree.

4) Sort of tied to (2). You make strong singular statements of belief. ENTPs tend to have a nebulous perception of the world. Very Bayesian. They can make positive statements about the world, but they have no loyalty to them. While a lot of people here claim ENTP, most of them would go back to being agnostic if for example, a thread full of people disagreed strongly with them. You always seem to have this one central belief from which every other perception is derived. You're uncomfortable with ambiguity. You're certain MBTI is legit. You were dead certain you were INTP, now you're dead certain you're ENTP. You listen to strong confident voices, and dismiss wishy washy, less committed ones. That's convergent thinking. Ne is divergent.

 

[Inquisitor]

Okay. Sorry. To me that doesn't add up (the notifying thing), but you might be abnormal in this respect so I'll take you at your word.

I didn't mean any disrespect. I just see the ENTP claim as patently false, and figure it would be more disrespectful to not saying anything. Like when someone has food stuck in their beard or something. I could have been more tactful. This could be more tactful.

The position I'm in is that if I were to type you, I'd conclude ISTJ. But as someone mentioned, that's a dumping ground for everything people don't like about others. I don't mean it as a bad thing, but given the social connotations, I would be impressed if anyone took it well. FYI I like ISTJs IRL so long as they're not my boss. But I don't want to prove you ISTJ, I don't think that's doable, or useful. I would like to overthrow the ENTP conclusion, because that seems like even more of a stretch than INTP, and it's a lot easier than narrowing you down to a single type.

Thank-you for deescalating.

I'm not going to beat around the bush. It's difficult to talk about something as personal as type without repeating niceties. I don't mean to offend, I just mean what I say.

Let's start.

1) Who on this forum do you perceive as ENTP? Names that come to mind as self-identifying ENTPs include TimeAsylums, TheHabitatDoctor, Cognisant, Yellow, Cheese(?), Cheeseumpuffs(?), ENTPlurker, TheScornedReflex, others I've missed. Do you think any of these people are ENTP? Which ones? Why? What do you have in common with them?

One common thread they have is shit posting

That is to say, they jump in the arena and like to make big fluffy imaginative posts about sweet nothings, almost practicing just how much they can puff up a non-event. It's all in good fun, it's a means of socialisation etc. You don't do this much iirc? I don't do it too much either honestly.

2) You don't like arguing. The actual act of arguing tires you and can push you to snapping. Yes you argue, mostly because your beliefs are called into questions. Your arguing almost always has a defensive positioning. Let me illustrate:

Inquisitor: positive claim
Other people: we disagree
Inquisitor: precedes to defend claim

Like this thread for example.

ENTPs tend to not like being tied down to one position. They like to argue, and arguing is better facilitated by waiting for other people to make positive claims, then assuming one of the many positions they can think of to best create conflict. If I were looking for people who actually enjoyed arguing, I'd look for contrarians with a fluidity to their world-view. You argue more like an INTJ, who is more than happy to just tell you the way they see things, and willing to argue to the end of the earth, but it's more about their confidence in their own perceptions than a genuine kick from arguing.

Example:


turns into



I'm not making any claims about pmjpmj, but see how fluid they are? Trying to make an argument happen, and unphased by the argument not happening. There's a detachment there. They tried and it didn't happen, so they just shift gears. Fluid.

ENTPs aren't soldiers for a cause, they're mercenaries paid in the currency of how smug winning makes them feel. They choose their battles. I share this characteristic, I don't think you do. Your arguing reeks of integrity as if you actually believe the things you say.

3.2) Multiple times in the past you've refused to listen to people based on their lack of authority. This is a very unENTP thing to do. If you like arguing, it doesn't matter so much who you're arguing with. You've discounted people's views based on age and what books they've read. I'm not making a value judgement here. But if you enjoyed arguing, you wouldn't be looking for ways to dismiss like this. You'd look for ways to win.

3) I'd like to hear what Reckful and Archie have to say on your type. I'd wager at best for your conclusion, they'll fail to rule out the possibility you're ENTP. I mention these people specifically because you've listened to them in the past, acknowledging their authority to some degree.

4) Sort of tied to (2). You make strong singular statements of belief. ENTPs tend to have a nebulous perception of the world. Very Bayesian. They can make positive statements about the world, but they have no loyalty to them. While a lot of people here claim ENTP, most of them would go back to being agnostic if for example, a thread full of people disagreed strongly with them. You always seem to have this one central belief from which every other perception is derived. You're uncomfortable with ambiguity. You're certain MBTI is legit. You were dead certain you were INTP, now you're dead certain you're ENTP. You listen to strong confident voices, and dismiss wishy washy, less committed ones. That's convergent thinking. Ne is divergent.

It's a good post. Thanks. I'm going to sleep on it.

 

[reckful]

Your interpretation reckful, but you're wrong. You're taking that one line and extrapolating it to mean Jung thought most people's top two functions were equally well-developed. You're ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as introversion and extraversion, only introverted and extraverted functions. If you don't believe in the functions, then that's your problem, and you can limit yourself to the MBTI dichotomies. I feel compelled to point out to you that not a few people disagree with your assessment, including the well-known CelebrityTypes site, which I'm sure you've seen. I may be mistaken, but I think the guy who runs that site is an INTJ as well. He seems to be very well-read, why did he come to a completely different conclusion? Have you ever asked yourself that?

In any case, your argument basically comes down to a few lines of text Psychological Types that you've creatively interpreted, and you also creatively interpreted the MBTI manual:


https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-interpret-an-MBTI-score-that-does-not-indicate-any-particular-type

I don't have the actual book, so I'm relying on what this person said, but you tell me if she has it wrong. "Tension" between the poles = confusion, not ambiversion. So actually, there goes another one of your arguments down the drain. So yes, I feel confident in declaring that "ambiversion" is not possible. You apparently have not understood that this whole business is non-behaviorist. It's about cognitive orientation. Behavior can and does fluctuate widely but cognition does not. Behavior is contingent on upbringing and environment. Cognition is not. Behavior can make an introvert think they are an extravert and vice versa. This doesn't mean the underlying cognitive process has changed, let alone that the individual is equally introverted and extraverted. Introspection is not the same thing as introversion. An extravert can be very introspective, and an introvert can be very outgoing for a time. If your job requires you to be someone you're not for an extended period of time, you might very well split the vote on the test. But again...not ambiversion. I maintain there's nothing in any typology text that makes an argument for ambiversion. I asked you to "show me the money" last time we spoke and you were unable to do so. I assume you're bringing this up again just b/c you're still pissed about that.

Integrity much?

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

You can agree with Jung or disagree with Jung, but on some issues, what Jung said is more in the nature of a fact.

You say there's "no such thing as introversion and extraversion," but in fact, introversion and extraversion, as manifested in introverts and extraverts, was Jung's main subject in Psychological Types. He spent more time talking about the things he thought were characteristic of introverts (generally) and extraverts (generally) than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

He thought Mother Nature had created extraverts and introverts because they were, in effect, two separate human subspecies who pursued two separate (not eight separate) reproductive strategies, each successful in its own way.

As I noted in my first post, Jung's eight function-attitude types were four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert. And he never discussed a dominant extraverted or introverted function outside the context of the person with that function either being an extravert or an introvert (as applicable).

And he really could not have been clearer than he was in that 1923 lecture — given two years after Psychological Types was published and later added by Jung to the Collected Works edition — where he first introduced his audience to the "extraverted" and "introverted" types, and then he said this:

There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group, on one side of which are those whose motivations are determined mainly by the external object, and, on the other, those whose motivations are determined from within. I call the first group extraverted, and the second group introverted.​

Your ability to read that paragraph and then declare to a forum audience that "Nowhere in the foundational works is there any mention of an ambivert" does not speak well for you, amigo.

 

[onesteptwostep]

You know Inquisitor, you could take the "Are you ENTP or INTP?" quiz on the site you posted. It's only 17 questions.

I took it and got ENTP 24% and INTP 76%.

 

[The Gopher]

Oh by the slash I didn't mean you were an ambivert I was just referring to the past.

 

[OmoInisa]

Okay. Sorry. To me that doesn't add up (the notifying thing), but you might be abnormal in this respect so I'll take you at your word.

I didn't mean any disrespect. I just see the ENTP claim as patently false, and figure it would be more disrespectful to not saying anything. Like when someone has food stuck in their beard or something. I could have been more tactful. This could be more tactful.

The position I'm in is that if I were to type you, I'd conclude ISTJ. But as someone mentioned, that's a dumping ground for everything people don't like about others. I don't mean it as a bad thing, but given the social connotations, I would be impressed if anyone took it well. FYI I like ISTJs IRL so long as they're not my boss. But I don't want to prove you ISTJ, I don't think that's doable, or useful. I would like to overthrow the ENTP conclusion, because that seems like even more of a stretch than INTP, and it's a lot easier than narrowing you down to a single type.

Thank-you for deescalating.

I'm not going to beat around the bush. It's difficult to talk about something as personal as type without repeating niceties. I don't mean to offend, I just mean what I say.

Let's start.

1) Who on this forum do you perceive as ENTP? Names that come to mind as self-identifying ENTPs include TimeAsylums, TheHabitatDoctor, Cognisant, Yellow, Cheese(?), Cheeseumpuffs(?), ENTPlurker, TheScornedReflex, others I've missed. Do you think any of these people are ENTP? Which ones? Why? What do you have in common with them?

One common thread they have is shit posting

That is to say, they jump in the arena and like to make big fluffy imaginative posts about sweet nothings, almost practicing just how much they can puff up a non-event. It's all in good fun, it's a means of socialisation etc. You don't do this much iirc? I don't do it too much either honestly.

2) You don't like arguing. The actual act of arguing tires you and can push you to snapping. Yes you argue, mostly because your beliefs are called into questions. Your arguing almost always has a defensive positioning. Let me illustrate:

Inquisitor: positive claim
Other people: we disagree
Inquisitor: precedes to defend claim

Like this thread for example.

ENTPs tend to not like being tied down to one position. They like to argue, and arguing is better facilitated by waiting for other people to make positive claims, then assuming one of the many positions they can think of to best create conflict. If I were looking for people who actually enjoyed arguing, I'd look for contrarians with a fluidity to their world-view. You argue more like an INTJ, who is more than happy to just tell you the way they see things, and willing to argue to the end of the earth, but it's more about their confidence in their own perceptions than a genuine kick from arguing.

Example:


turns into



I'm not making any claims about pmjpmj, but see how fluid they are? Trying to make an argument happen, and unphased by the argument not happening. There's a detachment there. They tried and it didn't happen, so they just shift gears. Fluid.

ENTPs aren't soldiers for a cause, they're mercenaries paid in the currency of how smug winning makes them feel. They choose their battles. I share this characteristic, I don't think you do. Your arguing reeks of integrity as if you actually believe the things you say.

3.2) Multiple times in the past you've refused to listen to people based on their lack of authority. This is a very unENTP thing to do. If you like arguing, it doesn't matter so much who you're arguing with. You've discounted people's views based on age and what books they've read. I'm not making a value judgement here. But if you enjoyed arguing, you wouldn't be looking for ways to dismiss like this. You'd look for ways to win.

3) I'd like to hear what Reckful and Archie have to say on your type. I'd wager at best for your conclusion, they'll fail to rule out the possibility you're ENTP. I mention these people specifically because you've listened to them in the past, acknowledging their authority to some degree.

4) Sort of tied to (2). You make strong singular statements of belief. ENTPs tend to have a nebulous perception of the world. Very Bayesian. They can make positive statements about the world, but they have no loyalty to them. While a lot of people here claim ENTP, most of them would go back to being agnostic if for example, a thread full of people disagreed strongly with them. You always seem to have this one central belief from which every other perception is derived. You're uncomfortable with ambiguity. You're certain MBTI is legit. You were dead certain you were INTP, now you're dead certain you're ENTP. You listen to strong confident voices, and dismiss wishy washy, less committed ones. That's convergent thinking. Ne is divergent.

Brilliant post. I agree ENTP is an odd conclusion. What intrigues me is whether he fits more INTP or ISTJ.

I would caution though that ISTJ is not the only type that's much caricatured. All types are in different ways, and ENTP is no exception.
The main caricature is the flaky, wishy-washy reputation. Real-life functional ENTPs tend not to jump around without commitment from idea to idea. Or more precisely, they tend not to shift flakily from one framework of understanding (Ti) to another. They can be (and tend to be) rather devoted to a framework, for the duration of the time they hold to it. This could be a couple of months, or it could be many years (though it's more often in months than in years). But then they tend to discard it when it loses utility or relevance.

This is the archetype of the thought leader who gathers a large and convinced following and then walks away from the project after 5 years, leaving his stunned and bemused disciples holding the metaphorical babies. Aushra Augusta is a classic example. INTPs do not tend to discard so easily. They also tend to be less vigorous and categorical in the first place. There is a case of the tortoise and the hare.

 

[redbaron]

Lolol this is actually a scary accurate description of me

It's an accurate description of almost everyone because nothing in it is falsifiable. Just fill in your own blanks.

May as well be fucking astrology.

 

[Happy]

It's an accurate description of almost everyone because nothing in it is falsifiable. Just fill in your own blanks.

May as well be fucking astrology.

thats what i figured 'barnummy' meant...

 

[Tannhauser]

your argument basically comes down to a few lines of text Psychological Types that you've creatively interpreted, and you also creatively interpreted the MBTI manual

The Jungian Inquisition has made it clear: if you are not a literalist, you're a heretic.

By the way, Inquisitor. You're ignoring the empirical evidence against your claims (i.e. evidence you should focus on instead of cherry-picking confirmatory evidence). It shows that MBTI-traits are unimodal, which centers most individual around the middle, as reckful says.

when larger numbers of points were used, score distributions became strongly center-weighted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11936208

Another one:

Although bimodality appears to be an
essential characteristic of the distributions
of scores, it is conspicuously absent. Evi-
dence from several sources (Harvey &
Murry, 1994; Hicks, 1984; McCrae &
Costa, 1989; Stricker & Ross, 1962) indi-
cates a continuous distribution of scores
across each dimension. More recently, Bess
and Harvey (2002) replicated the finding of
unimodality of scores using the item re-
sponse theory scoring scheme promoted in
the current edition of the measure (Myers et
al., 1998). As I have noted elsewhere (Pit-
tenger, 1993), even the data presented in
the MBTI manual provide only tentative
evidence for a discontinuous scale and
greater evidence for a continuous measure
of personality traits.
The lack of bimodality and the high
frequency of scores at the midpoint of the
scales have profound implications for inter-
preting the MBTI’s four-letter type for-
mula. There is no evidence of separate pop-
ulations of personality types using the stan-
dard scoring procedure. Thus, concluding
that an E type is qualitatively different from
an I type is indefensible unless there are
corresponding data to suggest that the dif-
ference between the scale scores is suffi-
ciently large to support such a distinction.

(Pittenger -- Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator) link

 

[scorpiomover]

I can't say Ne is about arguing and debating. The only thing consistent with Ne is that it's always changing it's mind. Ne's would have it the worst with indecisiveness, and self-doubt. It settles on an impression for a little while before hopping to something completely different.

True. ENTPs and ENFPs tend to not mind that they keep switching ideas. They seem quite happy to do so, and don't seem to be bothered that last week, they were trying something completely different.

INTPs seem to be extremely bothered when their Ne persuades them to change their mind. It makes them think that their previous judgement was wrong, and that their ability to make judgements is thus questionable.

As a result, when INTPs tend to change their mind, they tend to want to figure out how they could have thought what they thought before, while still maintaining what they think now. This generates an internal struggle in them, that is only resolved by developing a more complex theory that allows for each judgement to be valid in different situations, due to the nature of the rules of the theory. In short, they add more variables to their equation, to include both versions, like a backwards-compatible program.

ENTP programs are more like an upgrade where the previous code is rendered defunct and non-applicable.

What I perceive as most J-types is they'll love to argue. SJ's particularly picking a certain point and arguing it to the death, talking over everyone else, and seeing no problem with completely ignoring any other input that doesn't side with their own.

SJs don't seem to want to argue at all. They seem to be very certain of their views, and simply say "No". If you really push them, they'll give reasons for their views.

If, however, they have decided that by others not following their views, that they are putting others in danger, and particularly the SJ in question, then they tend to argue endlessly that everyone should do as they say. However, when that happens, it's being driven by fears that are generated from possible dangers imagined by Ne. As Ne is in the subconscious region of their minds, they tend to be a bit primitive in their thinking, and their arguments tend to contain major flaws, that make it unreasonable to accept their arguments, even if you agree with their conclusions. Hence why they seem "irrational" to NTs.

 

[PmjPmj]

I'm not making any claims about pmjpmj

I'm a 5w4, and therefore far less 'rod up arse' than the type 1 INTJ stereotypes often thrown about the place. Also, apathy. You know when you think you have a point to make, but then just can't be arsed / subsequently laugh at your own idiocy?

I am reminded of the 'arguing on the internet / special olympics' picture which did the rounds a few years ago.

Regardless, you seem to have an ok grasp on the topic at hand. So meh. Fire away - just so long as you know that it's all bullshit and ethically questionable.

You monster.

 

[Architect]

Good for you Inquisitor, it is usually difficult to self type, usually harder than typing others. Ignore the naysayers, I also don't know why people say things like "type doesn't matter" on a type board. Quick note

Nowhere in the foundational works is there any mention of an ambivert. I know it's a popular postulate of many, but the fact is that there's no theoretical basis for it whatsoever.

Yeah ambivert is a made up bullshit term. The nature of Type is that we all are ambiverts.

One characteristic I've noticed with ENTP's is they tend to come off to some degree as abrasive as others. Sometimes unintentionally, sometimes because they like to get a rise out of people. I think it's the basic and natural intellectual abrasiveness of Ti just put out more. You can see it with ISTP's usually, and with INTP's it's more hidden due to our more reclusive natures. Something to think about, not all ENTP's are like this and it varies.

I don't know whether you are one or not*, and picking a person's type from anonymous forum posts is nearly impossible. Comparing yourself to clear INTP's and ENTP's is highly useful as you've done. For public figures, on INTP's you can consider Larry David, Albert Einstein and Bill Gates. For ENTP's consider Camille Paglia, Adam Savage, Ann Coultair, and possibly Jon Stewart and Donald Trump.

In personal interactions I've found that ENTP's always beat me out socially. They keep a large entourage while I barely manage a friend or two. Conversely I always beat them out in analysis, while I'm just getting warmed up they'll want to quit.

* My small observations is that your forum demeanor seems well enough to be INTP, certainly not flaming ISXX as others have. ENTP? Maybe, you don't come off as strongly as ENTP's usually do but I don't know. On not being able to go the mile with working on computers, maybe ... certainly when we're younger our intellectual stamina is less. It was with me, however I do notice that INTP's such as myself, son and INTP friends are able to stay on a computer hour after hour, doing something. My kid can't concentrate on programming for too long, but he can game all day where I'll wear out after an hour or two. I'm working with an ENTP CS professor on an open source project. He's written a huge system solo, so it's possible for ENTP's to develop this skill certainly.

 

[Tannhauser]

Its like the olympics of circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

 

[ummidk]

Its like the olympics of circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

Mbti? Yup

 

[Inquisitor]

Integrity much?

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

You can agree with Jung or disagree with Jung, but on some issues, what Jung said is more in the nature of a fact.

You say there's "no such thing as introversion and extraversion," but in fact, introversion and extraversion, as manifested in introverts and extraverts, was Jung's main subject in Psychological Types. He spent more time talking about the things he thought were characteristic of introverts (generally) and extraverts (generally) than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

True.

He thought Mother Nature had created extraverts and introverts because they were, in effect, two separate human subspecies who pursued two separate (not eight separate) reproductive strategies, each successful in its own way.

As I noted in my first post, Jung's eight function-attitude types were four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert. And he never discussed a dominant extraverted or introverted function outside the context of the person with that function either being an extravert or an introvert (as applicable).

Right. This is no way shape or form proof or support for your opinion that it is possible for someone to be equally introverted or extraverted. It's true Jung talked about introversion and extraversion. It's true that each of the 8 types are varieties of introverts or extraverts. None of this indicates that Jung thought an Ne type could be equally extraverted as introverted or a Ti type equally introverted as extraverted.

And he really could not have been clearer than he was in that 1923 lecture — given two years after Psychological Types was published and later added by Jung to the Collected Works edition — where he first introduced his audience to the "extraverted" and "introverted" types, and then he said this:

There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group, on one side of which are those whose motivations are determined mainly by the external object, and, on the other, those whose motivations are determined from within. I call the first group extraverted, and the second group introverted.​

Your ability to read that paragraph and then declare to a forum audience that "Nowhere in the foundational works is there any mention of an ambivert" does not speak well for you, amigo.

This passage is part of the introduction. You don't see this kind of thing anywhere else in the text. I already pointed out to you that Jung thought that in general one function predominated. Why you keep bringing up this tiny little block of text is a mystery to me. If you asked Jung whether or not the normal man (who constitutes a plurality presumably) had two functions (one introverted and one extraverted) that were equally well-developed, are you honestly going to argue that Jung would have responded in the affirmative?

No. I'll bet he would have told you that every individual generally has a predominant function, but that in the normal man, there's a nice balance and he's not going to the extremes, and he's not pathological or neurotic. In fact, he thought that equally well-developed functions such as thinking and feeling were the mark of a "primitive" mentality. You have your opinions, but unfortunately, you've misinterpreted the facts.

Absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, because the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily … contradict the first

I just started a thread on this, because I think it's an important topic.

You know Inquisitor, you could take the "Are you ENTP or INTP?" quiz on the site you posted. It's only 17 questions.

I took it and got ENTP 24% and INTP 76%.

I took the test and got INTP with similar results as you.

The Jungian Inquisition has made it clear: if you are not a literalist, you're a heretic.

By the way, Inquisitor. You're ignoring the empirical evidence against your claims (i.e. evidence you should focus on instead of cherry-picking confirmatory evidence). It shows that MBTI-traits are unimodal, which centers most individual around the middle, as reckful says.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11936208

Another one:

(Pittenger -- Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator) link

This has been addressed many times before. reckful actually did a really good job covering the "problem" of unimodality vs. bimodality. I'm sure if he feels inclined, he'll direct you to the appropriate links for that. Or you could just google personalitycafe and find it yourself. I think it's under "debunking."

Good for you Inquisitor, it is usually difficult to self type, usually harder than typing others. Ignore the naysayers, I also don't know why people say things like "type doesn't matter" on a type board. Quick note

Yeah ambivert is a made up bullshit term. The nature of Type is that we all are ambiverts.

One characteristic I've noticed with ENTP's is they tend to come off to some degree as abrasive as others. Sometimes unintentionally, sometimes because they like to get a rise out of people. I think it's the basic and natural intellectual abrasiveness of Ti just put out more. You can see it with ISTP's usually, and with INTP's it's more hidden due to our more reclusive natures. Something to think about, not all ENTP's are like this and it varies.

Thanks for this. I really enjoy getting a rise out of people. In fact my parents occasionally joked that I was a "sadist."

I don't know whether you are one or not*, and picking a person's type from anonymous forum posts is nearly impossible. Comparing yourself to clear INTP's and ENTP's is highly useful as you've done. For public figures, on INTP's you can consider Larry David, Albert Einstein and Bill Gates. For ENTP's consider Camille Paglia, Adam Savage, Ann Coultair, and possibly Jon Stewart and Donald Trump.

I try to find people around me and type them as best I can. Hopefully I can become great at typing people one day. I agree it's not possible to type someone accurately purely from forum posts.

In personal interactions I've found that ENTP's always beat me out socially. They keep a large entourage while I barely manage a friend or two. Conversely I always beat them out in analysis, while I'm just getting warmed up they'll want to quit.

What tipped me over the edge actually was interacting with an EE/Compsci INTP in my research program this summer. We've had many excellent conversations about MBTI and he's just as obsessed with it as I am. I'm just not quite the same as him though...He loves math and coding for its own sake, I don't.

* My small observations is that your forum demeanor seems well enough to be INTP, certainly not flaming ISXX as others have. ENTP? Maybe, you don't come off as strongly as ENTP's usually do but I don't know. On not being able to go the mile with working on computers, maybe ... certainly when we're younger our intellectual stamina is less. It was with me, however I do notice that INTP's such as myself, son and INTP friends are able to stay on a computer hour after hour, doing something. My kid can't concentrate on programming for too long, but he can game all day where I'll wear out after an hour or two. I'm working with an ENTP CS professor on an open source project. He's written a huge system solo, so it's possible for ENTP's to develop this skill certainly.

This is a great point about intellectual stamina. I'll keep this in mind. What actually concerns me more though is the fact that I just love, love, love the social sciences whereas computing is just OK. I enjoy programming to an extent. Certainly learning about neural networks and the math behind is somewhat interesting but it's not nearly as exciting for me as the world of people + ideas (economics, psychology) Both of those fields are awesome. I don't think I enjoy math for its own sake, but if it helps me glean some insights about human nature then I'll absolutely use it. Maybe I haven't learned to appreciate it yet? I don't struggle much with math. I had a really hard time with discrete mathematics last semester, but still pulled off an A-. I found multi-variable calculus to be extremely easy. Coding is fun when I'm free to go about it my own way.

So it's a bit of a dilemma for me right now. I've been taking these CS classes for a year now but still kind of longing for something that has more of a human connection, even if it's indirect...Computers are kind of too divorced from that...It's still a very good skillset to have, but I'm considering combining it with something else. Right now I'm doing research in computer vision. It's alright, but I can't say I'm ecstatic about it for the moment.

 

[Tannhauser]

This has been addressed many times before. reckful actually did a really good job covering the "problem" of unimodality vs. bimodality. I'm sure if he feels inclined, he'll direct you to the appropriate links for that. Or you could just google personalitycafe and find it yourself. I think it's under "debunking."

Are you suggesting I go look for some explanation for why the falsifying evidence should be ignored? Well, the principle is very simple: if they theory disagrees with experiment, the theory is wrong.

From what I remember, the usual argument against the unimodality is to say "oh but the tests are not capturing the actual processes which are at work in the psyche as they are described by the MBTI". That is, of course, known as moving the goalpost. We first agree to look at what the empirical evidence says with regards to the MBTI test, but when the evidence is against it, we say "forget the test, the theory is too sophisticated to be captured by a test".

In that regard, the MBTI is completely indistinguishable from Astrology and other bullshit theories.

 

[Inquisitor]

Are you suggesting I go look for some explanation for why the falsifying evidence should be ignored? Well, the principle is very simple: if they theory disagrees with experiment, the theory is wrong.

From what I remember, the usual argument against the unimodality is to say "oh but the tests are not capturing the actual processes which are at work in the psyche as they are described by the MBTI". That is, of course, known as moving the goalpost. We first agree to look at what the empirical evidence says with regards to the MBTI test, but when the evidence is against it, we say "forget the test, the theory is too sophisticated to be captured by a test".

In that regard, the MBTI is completely indistinguishable from Astrology and other bullshit theories.

Hey Tannhauser, what's new?

 

[Tannhauser]

Hey Tannhauser, what's new?

Oh wow. Inquisitor is "above" debating MBTI this time around.

Fair enough, I'll leave you guys to it in your Astrology circle jerk club.

 

[Grayman]

This is over the top....

Ne/Ni types put this much thought into MBTI. Sensors often know better that is why there are no MBTI Sensor websites outside of personalityCafe.com

http://www.infpforum.net/ Ne
http://intjforum.com/ Ni
http://www.infjs.com/ Ni
www.intpforum.com/ Ne

Only ones I can find.

INTJ = MBTI Function Believer
INTP = MBTI Function Agnostic
INFJ = MBTI Personality Believer
INFP = MBTI Personality Agnostic

 

[Sinny91]

My uncle ENTP is simultaneously one of the warmest yet coldest people I know. He's happy in his job at the council in Highway Maintenance, he's in a management position and enjoys his freedom. He has a large social circle, he can be playful and inspiring, but on the other hand he's a misogynistic, traditionalist, authoritarian.

He always has a woman in his life, and subjects them to expectations, I personally wouldn't even entertain.

He makes a game out of it all.

Fuckin sadist. But he would argue in return to say that he fulfills his end of the bargain in his traditionalist role.

Meh.

Come to think about, I think he purposely gets with ESF's. He hates being challenged from an NT point of view, and he says he'll do anything for the 'easy life'.

He's very sentimental, Roman Catholic, often at war with himself, no doubt.

 

[Urakro]

A working deterministic model of how the biological state of a person translates into observable behaviour has not been found. The inner workings of the brain/body is still too complex to be able to describe why people do the things they do. Jung only had the outside, consequential effects of this to work with.

So he noticed he could divide the vast variety of human expression by categorically separating people based on a few observable traits. Being an imaginative visionary, he devises a defined system from these traits, and hypothesised it could explain and predict human behaviour. If he was a psychologist without advanced technology, his categorical system would seem to have been a good tool to help in working with his clients.

Yet, the inner biological states and the changes of the growing mind is a lot more complex than mere introversion and extroversion groups. Not much different than trees or plants; a gust of wind blowing a seed towards a direction; a bird moving the seed to a different place, it happens to get lucky and sprout, yet near a rock and grows slanted with the sun partly obscured by a cliff. The result being something unique, yet very unpredictable for us because there's way too many variables. We can't really know that a GABA neuron will grow in that precise location, or say with accuracy the amount of molecules a neurotransmitter will emit, let alone the effects it may have on the person's behaviour and decisions.

I just seriously doubt there was some grand intelligent plan that defined that introversion or extroversion was hard-coded into this chaotic process. These 'cognitive functions' are just classifications Jung made up to make some sort of short-cut grasp at understanding psychology. It's not that someone is an introvert, they just have frequency to behave as one in terms of it's vague definition. In fact, all the cognitive functions have vague definitions, thus leaving everything up to interpretation, and that's why people argue, fight and cry, while others say that it's all just a fallacious mind-trap no different than astrology and charlatan scams.

Scientific methods and good critical thinking have the same intentions as a trial of an accused criminal. The aim is to get to a truth that is as close to undeniable as we can. When a hypothesis is made, it's held up against any probability of doubt, and thoroughly tested for falsification.

Some claims like "people become ghosts when they die", or "there is an alien society much like ours many light years away" cannot even be methodically tested, because we have no way of measuring something that is both utterly invisible and completely immaterial, or in the alien case, we have no way of being able to observe planets many light years away. Jung's 'cognitive functions' and MBTI falls into this category, and this is what tannhauser is trying to say. It ties back in to my main point; we aren't advanced enough to test the necessary things in neurology, or make a complete deterministic structure of human psychology.

 

[TheManBeyond]

THUS SPOKE THEMANBEYOND

 

[EyeSeeCold]

So he noticed he could divide the vast variety of human expression by categorically separating people based on a few observable traits. Being an imaginative visionary, he devises a defined system from these traits, and hypothesised it could explain and predict human behaviour. If he was a psychologist without advanced technology, his categorical system would seem to have been a good tool to help in working with his clients.

I would disagree with you here. Instead of trying to predict human behavior his own theory of Types was born from the effort to summarize the wealth of his experience in psychiatry and exploring other cultures, and to synthesize past theories of types from philosophy and early psychology. I make this distinction because he was opposed to Freud's attempt to subject the psyche to objective scrutiny, it's arguable that he didn't imagine his theory would hold up to the scientific method and didn't expect people to become fanatics with typing themselves and their friends.

These 'cognitive functions' are just classifications Jung made up to make some sort of short-cut grasp at understanding psychology. It's not that someone is an introvert, they just have frequency to behave as one in terms of it's vague definition. In fact, all the cognitive functions have vague definitions, thus leaving everything up to interpretation, and that's why people argue, fight and cry, while others say that it's all just a fallacious mind-trap no different than astrology and charlatan scams.

Jung's 'cognitive functions' and MBTI falls into this category, and this is what tannhauser is trying to say. It ties back in to my main point; we aren't advanced enough to test the necessary things in neurology, or make a complete deterministic structure of human psychology.

I disagree with these two excerpts as well, or with Tannhauser. If we bring types back into the realm of psychiatry then each function configuration should have "symptoms" which is indeed falsifiable. The Socionics Model A posits that types have specific neuroses which can be disproved with double blind experiments and neurological monitoring.


edit: Not that I don't see what you're saying about vagueness, the difference between model/map vs reality, and the limits of current science.

 

[TheManBeyond]

it's seems that some people are not getting the fact that we are playing a game and i'm the one who's winning.

 

[OmoInisa]

Oh wow. Inquisitor is "above" debating MBTI this time around.

Fair enough, I'll leave you guys to it in your Astrology circle jerk club.

I'm baffled by why someone who presumably thinks typology is nonsense would spend time on a forum dedicated to discussing the dynamics of type. Is it to wage a gratifying war on superstition?
Or perhaps a form of therapy as you make the painful journey away from your hitherto fanatical religion?
Or perhaps your position is simply overstated for the sake of argument.

 

[Architect]

I'm baffled by why someone who presumably thinks typology is nonsense would spend time on a forum dedicated to discussing the dynamics of type. Is it to wage a gratifying war on superstition?

Happens all the time - I don't get it. As soon as a variation of "type doesn't matter" comes out of a posters keyboard I tune out, cogito delenda est

 

[The Gopher]

Yeah it's like ridiculing people on an astrology board. What's the point. That said there is a case for saying astrology doesn't matter as much as people say it does.

@TMB I'm glad you think that way.

 

[Analyzer]

If you don't resemble anything like this dude you're not a ENTP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcv4HyEY3w

 

[TheManBeyond]

If you don't resemble anything like this dude you're not a ENTP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcv4HyEY3w

reminds me soooooo much of an old guy who was working with me, damn, like the same crazyness, i thought he was an ESFP, not an N type for sure. he was really cool.

 

[Urakro]

I disagree with these two excerpts as well, or with Tannhauser. If we bring types back into the realm of psychiatry then each function configuration should have "symptoms" which is indeed falsifiable. The Socionics Model A posits that types have specific neuroses which can be disproved with double blind experiments and neurological monitoring.

I agree, each configuration group should have symptoms, but precisely because we defined it so. It's circular reasoning.

For instance, let's hypothetically create a different personality system, where we group people based on whether they are dominantly happy or sad, and further separate those into people who have a liking for sports or an aversion to them. We'll have created 4 groups:

a) Sad sportsmen
b) Sad sport-haters
c) Happy sportsmen
d) Happy sport-haters

And then we can say, "Hey, group (b) people are really bump on the logs. We did studies, and it shows that 75% of them have depression, and don't go to sport parties".

And you'd be right. That statement is undeniable, absolutely provable, yet it's circular logic.

The definitions for typology systems is more complicated, and often vague, but I'd assume it works the same way. Taking the example above, it seems that we were trying to construct new information by combining observable traits. Perhaps, group (b) people are more overweight than other groups. Perhaps group (a)'s are workaholics in other areas of their life. Then there'd be arguments "No, not all group b's are overweight,.." Same thing happens with MBTI types.

I don't hate Jung's works, and I like MBTI and socionic systems. It's nice to be part of a group. I also love ghost stories, and thinking about aliens. But when someone claims that ghosts are scientifically proven because they asked one a question which was responded with static on a radio, I match the same conviction to prove it false.

This is kinda basic and it's not that I'm really a logical person, and I've caught myself in ignorance many times before.

 

[reckful]

I make this distinction because he was opposed to Freud's attempt to subject the psyche to objective scrutiny, it's arguable that he didn't imagine his theory would hold up to the scientific method.

Actually, mystical streak notwithstanding, Jung believed in applying the scientific method to the extent that that was reasonably feasible.

In one of the articles included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types, Jung brought up astrology — along with several other "age-old" typologies — solely to dismiss it as unacceptable as a tool for psychological analysis. "As for the astrological type theory," Jung wrote, "to the astonishment of the enlightened it still remains intact today, and is even enjoying a new vogue." By contrast, Jung explained, "our scientific conscience does not permit us to revert to these old, intuitive ways of thinking. We must find our own answer to this problem, an answer which satisfies the needs of science."

Some claims like "people become ghosts when they die", or "there is an alien society much like ours many light years away" cannot even be methodically tested, because we have no way of measuring something that is both utterly invisible and completely immaterial, or in the alien case, we have no way of being able to observe planets many light years away. Jung's 'cognitive functions' and MBTI falls into this category, and this is what tannhauser is trying to say. It ties back in to my main point; we aren't advanced enough to test the necessary things in neurology, or make a complete deterministic structure of human psychology.

You're shortchanging the ability of personality typologies to achieve scientific respectability in the reliability and validity departments without the need for "neurological" data, and the MBTI has certainly done that.

Contrary to what you sometimes hear, and notwithstanding that there are important distinctions to be made between "hard sciences" and "soft sciences," the four MBTI dichotomies now have decades of data in support of their validity and reliability — and a combination of meta-review and large supplemental study in 2003 concluded that the MBTI was more or less "on a par" with the Big Five in terms of its psychometric respectability.

Anyone who's interested can read more about that — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in my long Another MBTI "Debunking" post (at PerC).

Your last post describes the MBTI as "circular reasoning," but identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on the the MBTI/Big Five dimensions than random pairs. It seems pretty clear at this point that those typological dimensions are tapping into clusters of personality characteristics that, to a substantial degree, are biologically hardwired.

 

[Tannhauser]

I'm baffled by why someone who presumably thinks typology is nonsense would spend time on a forum dedicated to discussing the dynamics of type. Is it to wage a gratifying war on superstition?
Or perhaps a form of therapy as you make the painful journey away from your hitherto fanatical religion?
Or perhaps your position is simply overstated for the sake of argument.

If you think it is strange that someone tries to dispute the validity of MBTI – on a MBTI forum, then presumably your have to admit that MBTI is not meant to be discussed as something pertaining to reality, and is ultimately a religion?

Imagine a group of physicists hearing a critique of their theories and then responding with "why don't you go somewhere else and try to dispute theories. We are here only to discuss with people who agree with us".

And besides all this, it does feel good to wage wars against bullshit and superstition. It's one of my hobbies.

 

[Tannhauser]

Yeah it's like ridiculing people on an astrology board. What's the point. That said there is a case for saying astrology doesn't matter as much as people say it does.

This is either a very clever or a very stupid statement.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm baffled by why someone who presumably thinks typology is nonsense would spend time on a forum dedicated to discussing the dynamics of type. Is it to wage a gratifying war on superstition?
Or perhaps a form of therapy as you make the painful journey away from your hitherto fanatical religion?
Or perhaps your position is simply overstated for the sake of argument.

I hesitate to say a majority, but certainly a large proportion of long standing members here either doubt or disbelieve MBTI. Not all are as vehement as Tannhauser, but we're here. This forum serves to bring in a few particular demographics, funnily enough, the ones that come here to snaggle at specifics of type to paint a contradiction tend to read higher on my INTPdar. It's not a forum specifically for INTPs, nor is it a forum specifically for believers.

There are many reasons for staying, foremost among them is a sense of community and friendship. Another reason is to actually test your conclusion that MBTI is false. Another might be to smugly slap down the protests of tru believers. Another might be that a person enjoys a more explorative and relaxed approach to poking at the unknown (empiricism can be exhausting). Plenty of people go to church who don't believe in God, the difference being that here you don't have to pretend.

 

[The Gopher]

This is either a very clever or a very stupid statement.

Aww I thought it was both, but what do I know.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The analogy between astrology and MBTI is wrong. The MBTI is a set of definitions and tries to systematize those defined cognitive traits, astrology tries to correlate personalities with star alignments. You can argue whether or not those assumed cognitive functions exist or whether it's defined poorly, or whether or not the system works, but that's as far as you can go. There's actual utility in MBTI. Astrology.. not so much.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think the analogy is fine but not perfect.

Astrology tries to systematise personality too, it just doesn't mix its mumbojumbo in the same way. It goes to astrophysics instead of psychodynamics. One is more relevant to the other to personality, but only if it's right.
What utility does MBTI have that astrology doesn't assuming that it's a poor tool? Because if it's a poor tool, then it follows that it has poor utility. In which case the analogy is fine to make.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I hesitate to say a majority, but certainly a large proportion of long standing members here either doubt or disbelieve MBTI. Not all are as vehement as Tannhauser, but we're here. This forum serves to bring in a few particular demographics, funnily enough, the ones that come here to snaggle at specifics of type to paint a contradiction tend to read higher on my INTPdar. It's not a forum specifically for INTPs, nor is it a forum specifically for believers.

There are many reasons for staying, foremost among them is a sense of community and friendship. Another reason is to actually test your conclusion that MBTI is false. Another might be to smugly slap down the protests of tru believers. Another might be that a person enjoys a more explorative and relaxed approach to poking at the unknown (empiricism can be exhausting). Plenty of people go to church who don't believe in God, the difference being that here you don't have to pretend.

I think the idea is that the negative attitude that Tannhouser exudes towards typology makes his presence seem insincere in the social aspect of the site's functions. There is definitely great value in preventing echo chambers and providing contradictory evidence from an intellectual standpoint, but to say you don't "believe" in typology while hanging around people who do and throwing insults makes you inherently socially antagonistic with a possible agenda.

I'm certain about my interest in typology but I don't think types are certain and personally I don't have a need for someone to preach to me that types have not been scientifically validated. Or should we only discuss topics that have passed scientific rigor?

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think the analogy is fine but not perfect.

Astrology tries to systematise personality too, it just doesn't mix its mumbojumbo in the same way. It goes to astrophysics instead of psychodynamics. One is more relevant to the other to personality, but only if it's right.
What utility does MBTI have that astrology doesn't assuming that it's a poor tool? Because if it's a poor tool, then it follows that it has poor utility. In which case the analogy is fine to make.

It's a lofty comparison at best. Not really suited for my Ti.

MBTI does have use though, like in career placements and just in general, a way of pooling like-minded people together. A Capricorn might have nothing in common with another Capricorn, but an INTP would have a lot more in common with each other- in thinking style, social habits, overall life pattern and so on.

 

[Hadoblado]

He's not telling you not to discuss it. He's trying to convince you not to believe it.

I'm a mod here and I don't believe in MBTI. I'm not being socially insincere.

I haven't seen anything from Tannhauser in this thread that I would consider 'throwing an insult'.

It's a bit preachy I'll admit. But it's an inherently reactive position, which means that it's only ever thrown around when someone has assumed a positive position in relation to MBTI. Perhaps if there is sufficient discontent as a result of Tann's input then we would encourage him to make his own threads. It is after all, an enormous derail, but this thread was never on track to begin with.

He fulfills what I see as a necessary function on this forum. He's critical and he encourages people to be critical. Even if people aren't buying his particular position, his content is of above average quality and it can help people come to their own conclusions. He's not a prolific poster, he's still less than 1k.

In the meantime, consider using the block function. You can still click to check any post of his you think might be interesting given context, it's not as harsh a measure as one might think. I've blocked loads of people, only to unblock them later because I kept reading their posts regardless XD

 

[Hadoblado]

It's a lofty comparison at best. Not really suited for my Ti.

MBTI does have use though, like in career placements and just in general, a way of pooling like-minded people together. A Capricorn might have nothing in common with another Capricorn, but an INTP would have a lot more in common with each other- in thinking style, social habits, overall life pattern and so on.

Around half my friends are dragons.

Yeah I'll give you that it can cluster people of like minds together, but honestly, there are many tools that could do a similar job. Grouping people by occupation for instance. Grouping people by disabilities. Grouping by IQ. Grouping by political affiliation. Grouping by age. Grouping by level of education. Grouping by interests.

And all these things can be used in conjunction for greater predictive power. What's the chance that two people who work in gaming stores who share interests, political affiliations, IQ range, and experience social anxiety are unalike?

The advantages MBTI has over astrology are negligible given that equal or greater grouping could be done with less ambiguous measures.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Oh I don't mean I personally take offense. I just thought it might have a negative effect on the social atmosphere. But I guess I could be wrong if others think different.

I also didn't mean to say that people still here but reject mbti are all insincere.