Makes me wonder

[Coolydudey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfsE7w1zZKY

compare to this http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=13242&highlight=type

Makes me wonder how much of MBTI/typology is a placebo. I'm not doubting there is validity, just perhaps less than I saw before.

 

[cloud_way]

I'm betting none of those people are INTPs...

 

[Coolydudey]

no, in fact they're clearly not. Doesn't mean that it affects what I'm saying or the doubts it raises on systems like typology at all.

 

[cloud_way]

Well it's hard to validate what you're saying given that we can't compare the MBTI with the "personality test" from the video. We don't know the extensiveness of the test to even vaguely verify it's accuracy of whether or not the questions actually touched on a personal note.

 

[Coolydudey]

The point of it was that it was complete bogus. They gave 4 people the same "results", telling them that they were personalised from some test. They ALL identified with them 80%

 

[Yellow]

I don't have flash installed at the moment so I didn't watch the video, but I'm jumping in anyway.

I think it depends on the nature of the result descriptions. I've seen unofficial MBTI test summaries that were incredibly vague or that were based solely on the 4 letters, and so in those cases, a wrong results are (statistically speaking) going to be about half right for anyone. If all the descriptions have a positive spin on top of that (which a lot do), then people are going to go along with it thinking "yeah, this is pretty close and it makes me seem pretty awesome, so I'd say, 'sure, that's me'". But if they saw one for their actual type to compare it to, there's a good chance that many people would change their minds.

That's why I prefer to see type descriptions that either get very specific, or that include negative traits. They are more likely to throw up red flags for people when the test results are wrong.

Also, I've always been a fan of the concept of subtypes (especially for SJs).

 

[Grayman]

The point of it was that it was complete bogus. They gave 4 people the same "results", telling them that they were personalised from some test. They ALL identified with them 80%

A comment made in the video: "You do not accept other peoples statements without satisfactory proof."

Statements like this apply to everyone but the important variable is proof. That is where everyone's view is different.

Shitty Test:
"You want to be more organized." Yes No
"You strive to be accepted by others." Yes No
etc... All vague.

A proper MBTI test and considerably less vague:
On a scale of 1 to 10 how organized do you think you are compared to others?

 

[MellifluousSky]

The Forer Effect in "full effect". How rampant is this for introductory MBTI test takers?

 

[QuickTwist]

That was beautiful.

 

[Knick]

I prefer not to rely on Buzzfeed for anything more intellectual than a list of 20 gifs with amusing captions.

MBTI can be perceived as another form of horoscopes when oversimplified, but so can anything.

 

[QuickTwist]

I prefer not to rely on Buzzfeed for anything more intellectual than a list of 20 gifs with amusing captions.

MBTI can be perceived as another form of horoscopes when oversimplified, but so can anything.

Welcome... Knick.

 

[Knick]

Hi.

I figured I've been lurking long enough. Gotta pop the post cherry somewhere.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hi.

I figured I've been lurking long enough. Gotta pop the post cherry somewhere.

Just 4 u:

http://youtu.be/N186XMU7RpM

 

[Knick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT-AC8552Xc

 

[QuickTwist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT-AC8552Xc

Hooray for that shhhit.