MBTI functions are logically incorrect and hence the typology is empirically invalid

[BurnedOut]

I have been reading up again on MBTI and testing-retesting with honest responses but one cognitive function test upturned everything that MBTI does. I will make a new thread on 'Logical validity and empirical practicality' to discuss the philosophical problem later.

So, my results basically showed that I am a hybrid INTP-INTJ with nearly equally strong corresponding functions which turns the theory on it's head. Ni and Ne are considered to be mutually exclusive processes given their diametric traits but turns out this governed much more than the prevailing mindset of the person than anything else. Suppose an Ni dom or a Te dom or an Si dom is an avid internet user since childhood. Suddenly it clicks to them in college that you can research things faster. In a bid to make it even faster, you learn to use google operators and sci-hub to download research papers putting you ahead of the class already. Now that you developed a skillset to do faster research. You WILL look like someone who uses lots of Ne but truth is that because you learned how to get information faster, you invariably learned a lot of that information subconsciously by seeing it being employed in theory or practice over and over again. So it's easier on your working memory to retain new facts and since you have a conceptual understanding with newer facts each time, you will obviously have the capacity to create diverse ideas in your head. This debunks the distinction between introverted and extroverted functions because this is a natural process of trial and error, evolution of thoughts and the part-arbitrary survival of the one which was the most-efficient.

 

[Hadoblado]

IIRC Ni and Ne aren't mutually exclusive. If you have Ne high in your stack, Ni is low in your stack but still exists (shadow functions).

I broadly agree with you, but if someone believes in MBTI they're not going to change their minds because of this. The bread and butter of pseudoscience is not being falsifiable, so any falsifiable statement will be retracted in favour of something less falsifiable the moment you address it.

 

[Cognisant]

MBTI is as scientific as any other internet quiz.

Welcome to House Ravenclaw.

 

[ZenRaiden]

MBTI is as scientific as any other internet quiz.

Jung never claimed it be science.
Something can be non scientific and still correct.
Kind of like we know how to have sex and not be taught in science class.



This is what Jung says on his psychological types.
Since MBTI is derived from his work it seems he agrees that its not that simple.

So Jung claims - typology is:

- not static
- is map not territory
- is entirely theoretical
- dichotomies are not really good idea, but rather gradients
- we are both E and I depends on situations.

I would also point out that even so called Jungian's often misquote or misrepresent Jung on topic of typology. Recently I watched a video on a channel for Jungian psychology where they explicitly criticized Jung for being a dichotomous, where literally his one of the most famous interviews he claims he is not.
Jungian people and psychology is bordello of theories, and many people in psychology aren't the brightest light bulbs.

 

[scorpiomover]

I have been reading up again on MBTI and testing-retesting with honest responses but one cognitive function test upturned everything that MBTI does. I will make a new thread on 'Logical validity and empirical practicality' to discuss the philosophical problem later.

So, my results basically showed that I am a hybrid INTP-INTJ with nearly equally strong corresponding functions which turns the theory on it's head. Ni and Ne are considered to be mutually exclusive processes given their diametric traits but turns out this governed much more than the prevailing mindset of the person than anything else.

Js use more time-based prospective memory.
Ps use more event-based prospective memory.

Event-based and Time-based prospective memory

Time-based prospective memory is a type of prospective memory in which remembrance is triggered by a time-related cue that indicates that a given action needs to be performed. An example is remembering to watch a television program at 3 p.m.[1] In contrast to time-based prospective memory, event-based prospective memory is triggered by an environmental cue that indicates that an action needs to be performed.[2] An example is remembering to send a letter (the action) after seeing a mailbox (the cue).

They seem to cause genuine differences in the brain:

In a positron emission tomography (PET) study, participants were asked to make a prospective response in either an event-based or time-based task condition.[5] Differences in activation of regions of the rostral prefrontal cortex were seen in the results according to whether the task was time- or event- based. Three rostral prefrontal regions were more active in the time-based condition: the right superior frontal gyrus, anterior medial frontal lobe and anterior cingulate gyrus.[5] These results suggest that there are different processing demands made by event- or time- based prospective memory tasks.[5][6]

Spoiler: My explanation

1) Prospective memory is your main way of remembering whatever it is that you planned to do next. It's the part of your brain that makes your decisions.

Js use a lot of time-based prospective memory, which anticipates sequentially. It's clear what to do, because whenever you finish what you are doing now, your brain will anticipate and show you the next item in the sequence of tasks you have to do, which also makes perfect sense, because it's the next item in the list.

However, it has one major weakness: not everything happens as expected. Sometimes you are walking in the jungle and you step on a snake where a snake should not be. So with this strategy alone, humans are very successful and then encounter an unexpected lethal threat and die. Live fast, die young, make a great corpse. Great for a hero. But if the person dies before they reproduce, that's terrible for a species.

2) So you need also the ability to search around for unexpected dangers. This ability, and the ability to make unexpected connections, both in general conversation, and also when considering topics like theoretical physics, comes from the event-based prospective memory.

Ps use a lot more event-based prospective memory than Js do. This part of the brain anticipates laterally, i.e. it connects to anything in the brain that might be related, according to the strength of the neural associations. Multiple associations can be made. So the person can be shown multiple possible choices of action.

As a result, if a Ps is low in time-based prospective memory, they probably won't remember to leave for work to get there by 9am, but will happily go to work if reminded to. So getting things done, is not an issue for Ps in a mutually supportive group environment.

Suppose an Ni dom or a Te dom or an Si dom is an avid internet user since childhood. Suddenly it clicks to them in college that you can research things faster. In a bid to make it even faster, you learn to use google operators and sci-hub to download research papers putting you ahead of the class already. Now that you developed a skillset to do faster research. You WILL look like someone who uses lots of Ne but truth is that because you learned how to get information faster, you invariably learned a lot of that information subconsciously by seeing it being employed in theory or practice over and over again. So it's easier on your working memory to retain new facts and since you have a conceptual understanding with newer facts each time, you will obviously have the capacity to create diverse ideas in your head.

A lot of INTJs take that approach. They've read the right books, can cite the accepted authors, and answer the questions in the way the invigilators set.

But real life isn't like tests. Real life throws all sorts of things at you the you didn't expect, and didn't come up when you used google operators and sci-hub. Sometimes you realise things simply because a friend said something stupid and it set off a connection in your mind.

Ne users usually have this non-linear approach, which forces them to explore the entire virtual landscape of the field. As a result, it takes them longer to learn to get minimal competency of a new task. But once they've mapped the landscape, they know all the routes, and can do almost anything on that topic, at any time, easily, with incredible efficiency.

Makes INTJs good all-rounders, and INTPs into idiot savants (geniuses in several areas, but idiots in others). The former are good for generally maintaining the existing society and infrastructure.

But if you wish to fix major problems in your society, or make significant improvements to your society, and the answers are not immediately obvious to your all-rounders, they probably won't have any better ideas tomorrow either. So you're going to need someone with better or at least different ideas to the ideas of the all-rounders, which means you need people like INTPs to come up with weird ideas of how to improve things that the all-rounders would not have thought of.

Without the INTPs, your society stagnates.

 

[BurnedOut]

Secondly, the whole assumption that people have stable cognitive functions in a hierarchy is also bullshit. It is impossible to have 16 different types of thinking when one has to tackle with long term memory recall, processing working memory with the entrained heuristics and also considering the impact of emotions and level of motivation in that moment. It is impossible to develop a hierarchy of functions in the context of all these processes especislly as a child. According to MBTI, kids are born with such patterned differentiation. That's a bigass LOL.

The prescribed behaviors of all functions are extremely complex and are mathematically impossible to happen by virtue of violation of conjunction rule - P(Ni) > P(Ni, Te, Fi). It's impossible to think in the framework of 3 cognitive functions as the probability of the person using the dominant function more is much higher than the probability of a person using their dominant function with auxillary and tertiary because their functioning is, again, mutually exclusive and mutually exclusive events happening has a probability of p(x) x p(y) which is obviously lower than either p(x) or p(y).

 

[BurnedOut]

Js use more time-based prospective memory.
Ps use more event-based prospective memory.

How does that explain my INTPJ personality? If Ni puportedly searches for patterns, how can it not be Ti because pattern-seeking itself requires a strong conceptual base and it is impossible to seek patterns without some universal logic. That makes INTJs and INTPs fundamentally equal in their introspection. My dad's an INTP and my previous boss is an INTJ (all purportedly) and they can both some incredibly open-minded or opinionated. Similarly I am an INTJ but my brainstorming skills are more or less identical with dad's with the difference being my aphantasia and synesthesia - I am able to compensate for lack of visual imagination by presence of being able to taste and touch logic from time to time. Similarly, I had an INTP friend who disliked brainstorming than penetrating into a subject but at the same time possessed knowledge of several things in contrast to me about certain things and vice versa in differing subjects but he came off as more diverse in his knowledge because his knowledge could be used as social currency - pop culture, music, fashion, traveling. He was gifted too and academically talented and I was not academically that inclined but we both relied on brute-forcing exams through rote memorization to get good marks. He SEEMED more open-minded because he SEEMED more accepting

 

[BurnedOut]

But real life isn't like tests. Real life throws all sorts of things at you the you didn't expect, and didn't come up when you used google operators and sci-hub. Sometimes you realise things simply because a friend said something stupid and it set off a connection in your mind.

How is researching not a life-skill? Knowing how to access information (not misinformation) efficiently is a good life-skill to have to stay on top of your game. Secondly, every brainstorming session needs a cue to begin. That's universal for all personality types and even animals - you should watch a honey badger's brain ticking while solving puzzle boxes.

But if you wish to fix major problems in your society, or make significant improvements to your society, and the answers are not immediately obvious to your all-rounders, they probably won't have any better ideas tomorrow either. So you're going to need someone with better or at least different ideas to the ideas of the all-rounders, which means you need people like INTPs to come up with weird ideas of how to improve things that the all-rounders would not have thought of.

The INTJ I know happens to be quite knowledgeable in his domain but also good at related subjects. Similarly with my dad. But they are both known to be damn open minded but limited to their subjects. Similarly I have a better-an-average understanding of dynamically typed languages to many employed coders I happen to know. Another INTP I know is all-rounder and excellent at picking up new things but not as motivated in mastering is domain

 

[BurnedOut]

Without the INTPs, your society stagnates.

That's hardly the case. I see INTPs telling me that they feel like they are stagnating and unable to contribute anything and the INTJs I know say the same thing. I have heard even an ISTJ and ESTJ say the same thing.

That being said, MBTI literally goes against Kantian ethics by deeming some personality types as being fundamentally unequipped to want as much freedom as NTs when in reality, the removal of structural domination in one's life can inspire tonnes of creativity. The theory does not even sociologically, politically and economically make sense. An INTP without knowledge of banking is always to get his ass handed by a ISFJ who happens to know the same. Similarly an ISTJ is going to be more creative in minecraft in contrast to an INTJ who (according to MBTI) wasted all his time trying things when he could have just read the underlying specification. An ENFP game modder will similarly be better than ENTP gamer at being creative in the game. It's all completely relative to how much you happen to know and how much you have internalized that knowing and supplanted some of your mental heuristics with that knowledge. One who's managed to embed concepts in their heuristical processing is always going to be faster and more creative regardless of their personality type. Scientists have existed throughout history but whackjob open-minded scientists are statistically less likely to exist. If INTP and INTJ are those whackjob scientists, their skill is unrelated to their personality.

Consider this. If I got Ni and Ne both high then Ne and Ni are autocorrelated. That means INTPs can sometimes be INTJs and vice versa. This is vindicated by the fact that people oftentimes keep getting different results. Secondly, the test measures the strength of conjunctions than measuring each trait individually and then in conjunction. This is also mathematically invalid as the dominance of Ti over Ne in an INTP cannot be inferred from deducing the probability of Ti > Ne from observation of both Ti-Ne as Ti having Ne not as its inferior is a higher probability than Ti having Ne being its inferior. You cannot have a personality theory

Lastly, it's impossible to type someone by their works and writings (barring purely technical works) because those works simply reflect their biases and opinions. Their works are not cross-verified by other people's opinions of them and the prevalent circumstances. Only a historian takes such an unbiased approach. If Da Vinci is an INTP and is popular, it's solely because he was popular and not because he did not have contemporaries. But nobody typed his contemporaries. If his contemporaries happen to have diverse histories but the same type, you can attribute it to being a cultural thing in that particular enclave of people. Typing people based on their autobiographies, speeches and works violates the rigorous methodology of history-taking

 

[fluffy]

Good story telling cannot be written down in formulaic fashion, therefore stories don't exist. sic

The difference between me and my sister is obviously clear. Extraverted Sensory she can see all the details and introverted feeling she has extreme reactions to things emotionally.

A test for this is stupid. Test designers don't know what the hell they are doing. They are for business use (ESTJ / ENTJ CEO people) not personal use so of course the tests will rank you based on what good you can serve the corporate system and not care about real distinctions.

The reason you think these tests are bullshit is because you rely on leadership be competent or incompetent. So everything associated with incompetent is absolutely false. Black and white empirical thinking. Is or is not. Same for people views on A.I. the hype is confused for what is possible so they get disappointed and say ALL a.i. is bullshit - all vaccines are bullshit - all science is a scam so believe in flat earth and an ice wall.

Ni is intuition, it comes from within can be wrong but often right because time oriented - what's next, what's next, what's next? So creates itself. Ne is external, INFP get it as a comic books story in that oh that idea is so cool or oh that idea is so horrible, it's non linear. ENTP make shit up to by Ti is about testing things in the mind not empirically as Te does. Often they get stuck so need Ne to get ideas from environment. Where Ni just is silent and oh that's the answer pops into their heads. No need to look at things.

Ni -> Te idea pops in, lets confirm it by testing chemistry and gears and levers. Research it to death and make sure everything can be known about it.

Ne -> Ti look at that picture of a transistor from 1947 what could it be, maybe it's like a crystal from Atlantis, let's think of how light can be used as living light vibrations for computation and do a presentation in fifth grade. (Actually all I knew was that the transistor was important, I didn't know it was a logic gate but it was important and in seventh grade I saw the book on Atlantis, still I presented it to the class) I cannot do research good. INFP get the same line of thoughts for emotional there emotions.

I get really random in thoughts INTJ don't. But it's extremely creative. ISFP told me crystals can be used to influence brain waves. I told them biofeedback used computers, to adjust algorithms to affect different brains areas. They can skateboard and feel all the sensations vibrations everywhere. They have fighter jet reflexes and sniper vision. I cannot test this but I see science stuff all the time and reflection on what's possible. INTJ need absolute proof because so much time testing. Math and reports or it did not happen!

 

[ZenRaiden]

I feel like main problem with people working MBTI, is that people are ascribing too much or too little to MBTI.

Either devaluing to a fault or overvaluing to a fault, and the reason for this is simply not understanding MBTI.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

- not static
- is map not territory
- is entirely theoretical
- dichotomies are not really good idea, but rather gradients
- we are both E and I depends on situations.

BINGO

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Without the INTPs, your society stagnates.

That's hardly the case. I see INTPs telling me that they feel like they are stagnating and unable to contribute anything and the INTJs I know say the same thing. I have heard even an ISTJ and ESTJ say the same thing.

That being said, MBTI literally goes against Kantian ethics by deeming some personality types as being fundamentally unequipped to want as much freedom as NTs when in reality, the removal of structural domination in one's life can inspire tonnes of creativity. The theory does not even sociologically, politically and economically make sense. An INTP without knowledge of banking is always to get his ass handed by a ISFJ who happens to know the same. Similarly an ISTJ is going to be more creative in minecraft in contrast to an INTJ who (according to MBTI) wasted all his time trying things when he could have just read the underlying specification. An ENFP game modder will similarly be better than ENTP gamer at being creative in the game. It's all completely relative to how much you happen to know and how much you have internalized that knowing and supplanted some of your mental heuristics with that knowledge. One who's managed to embed concepts in their heuristical processing is always going to be faster and more creative regardless of their personality type. Scientists have existed throughout history but whackjob open-minded scientists are statistically less likely to exist. If INTP and INTJ are those whackjob scientists, their skill is unrelated to their personality.

Consider this. If I got Ni and Ne both high then Ne and Ni are autocorrelated. That means INTPs can sometimes be INTJs and vice versa. This is vindicated by the fact that people oftentimes keep getting different results. Secondly, the test measures the strength of conjunctions than measuring each trait individually and then in conjunction. This is also mathematically invalid as the dominance of Ti over Ne in an INTP cannot be inferred from deducing the probability of Ti > Ne from observation of both Ti-Ne as Ti having Ne not as its inferior is a higher probability than Ti having Ne being its inferior. You cannot have a personality theory

Lastly, it's impossible to type someone by their works and writings (barring purely technical works) because those works simply reflect their biases and opinions. Their works are not cross-verified by other people's opinions of them and the prevalent circumstances. Only a historian takes such an unbiased approach. If Da Vinci is an INTP and is popular, it's solely because he was popular and not because he did not have contemporaries. But nobody typed his contemporaries. If his contemporaries happen to have diverse histories but the same type, you can attribute it to being a cultural thing in that particular enclave of people. Typing people based on their autobiographies, speeches and works violates the rigorous methodology of history-taking

SCATHING CRITIQUE


OBVIOUSLY THE WORK OF AN INTP

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Another INTP I know is all-rounder and excellent at picking up new things but not as motivated in mastering is domain

YEP

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But if you wish to fix major problems in your society, or make significant improvements to your society, and the answers are not immediately obvious

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Well, if we judge based on the consequences of applying a idea, that should simplify.

The output of something like astrology for example, I think it's more as a tool for one to assimilate more emotional language into ones vocabulary. Could it make you predict someone's behavior?

Probably not. Though, potentially, having an emotional lexicon could benefit oneself and those around them. They also could weaponize such a lexicon, even the idea that originated such a lexicon. Humans can be very creative for all the wrong reasons.

Gaming, can lead to modding, which can lead to general software development. It could also lead to addiction and underachievement.

You could say the same for MBTI, the consequence of people beliving it, may indeed lead them to act on unfounded assumptions.

This could happen, but also it could be harmless.

Its not taught at schools I think. At best there are some business think tank/association giving incredulous classes on the matter. Charging for tests. Things of the like.

 

[fractalwalrus]

I have been reading up again on MBTI and testing-retesting with honest responses but one cognitive function test upturned everything that MBTI does. I will make a new thread on 'Logical validity and empirical practicality' to discuss the philosophical problem later.

I will attempt to summarize your argument here (I did not quote the entirety of it for the sake of brevity). I may offer refutations of each point with a high degree of probability.

P1) Ne and Ni are mutually exclusive because they are diametrically opposed.

R1) I would challenge this premise. How are they mutually exclusive? Jung would not argue that one cannot use one function and not the other.

P2) The ability to rapidly research information would necessitate that one can manipulate said information to see connections or engage in "divergent thinking"

R2) This would imply that rapid researchers should all be excellent divergent thinkers, and I would question this assumption, as it would probably not take me long to find people with occupations involving high levels of research who are relatively poor divergent thinkers.

C) You tend towards using diametrically opposed functions and have argued that they functions can be imitated, therefore MBTI is invalid.

CR) Without the first 2 premises being valid, your conclusion (turning MBTI on its head) cannot be valid.

All this being said, I can think of other issues with the theory (the whole concept of external objects being separate from the internal subjective experience as being fundamentally presumptive and perhaps, unnecessarily and incorrectly distinguished.)

 

[BurnedOut]

Is everybody blind to logic? How can you go back to ascribing my criticism back to my INTP/J nature? I demonstrated the lack of coherence in the theory and how it manages to elude science. If you believe humans cannot fly, is it hard to believe that our brain cannot have 16 differentiated functions. Show me one place where MBTI's predictive power is of any use. A garbage theory has no empirical practicality.

 

[fluffy]

Practicality does not define Truth.

My sister said she didn't understand why she needed all school lessons when she was going to be a wild life explorer. So I guess math is dumb just because it's not practical to her?

Why is extraverted not real, why is introversion not real. If you cannot see them as real you might be like those people who said matter was a continuous not quantum until Einstein proved atoms existed. So what would prove introversion exists to you? If you say nothing and only pure logic proves anything then you are blind to science like those who disbelieve atoms can exist.

You need to see it with your own eyes, verify it yourself. Fine but it's not impossible. That again is black and white thinking. Jung gave the example of a doctor who rejected thermostat as a way to measure temperature. Only the finger can do it. Is that what is happening here?

Introversion goes inside, what is inside? I reject your intuition that cog functions doesn't exist. Why would they not, logic is not the end all be all, you didn't show anything, not a experiment not a reason. Just your opinion from your experience. Why the hell should they be believed. My experience is the authority then and my logic is superior. Na na na. That's how it goes. Call it what you will.

I think all the time. But I experience ideas all the time MORE - ever since a kid. I have seen people be introverted and extraverted in many ways. It's not logical to say people have not been this way, I've seen it. So again those test prove nothing. Not for or against. You might as well disprove gravity by flipping a coin. Look it landed on tails five times therefore gravity has been falsified. That's not how science works. Statistics is the bullshit saying cog functions doesn't exist so people say look my logic says it doesn't exist as well. How do you disprove introvert thinking or disprove introvert feelings. With coin flips? The delusional thinking of this is WHY science has turned into a joke. Extrovert sensation most of all has the most evidence, just go where people draw art and nothing can present as the opposite case. ISTJ might be another case of evidence for cog functions where people use the body as the instrument of thinking. Making stuff with body has great value where you think with actions. My brother is 100% ISTJ in Minecraft.

 

[fluffy]

Fi - I feel things
Fe - I see what others feel
Ti - I look inside to think
Te - I interact with stuff to think

Si - I sense from within the body
Se - I sense what is coming into me
Ni - I realized an idea from in my psyche
Ne - I realized ideas in those things outside myself, their abstract potency.

There's a bunch of reasons we don't get empirical results for personality without understanding first what we're looking for. We don't understand a car by looking at it chemistry, cars are not just iron and gasoline and glass. They drive and trucks load and air planes flying cannot be determined by looking at weight as cars can weight the same.

Example, can IQ predict behavior? Can MBTI predict cog functions? No. Not at the level we need.

The theory begins with libedo. The energy being introverted or the energy being extraverted. (Socionics is better at this)

The energy isn't just moving willy nilly.

We absorb it from its different directions.

And release it.

Thinking Feeling these take energy as decisions / action. Sensation and Intuition as information / data. So thinking says what operations can happen, feelings says what state am I and others are in. This energy is contingent on what happens next. Perception on what is happening.

Does the soda can get thrown away. Well you're not thirsty. But if you were it would taste like something. Then your body becomes fused into its essence. You see it you become it. But first you need to decide what actions to take. The thought you have then is not about its utility but the abstract function. Oh I forgot Jim already has soda and I need to not drink this soda or he will not be pleased I was not accepting of his jesters of soda at the party tonight. Or, oh this soda can be used in an experiment just like baking soda and vinegar, maybe a get away device in mission impossible. Or Ni - this soda belongs to Robert, I never met him but it is his, or I must spill this soda now, then run away to save the mission for no reason other than this is the time not planned or anything (a Sherlock Holmes idea?).

How do you test this? The above? I never mentioned introvert feelings or ISTP stuff either. It's so complicated. But you can describe many scenarios. Many psychological situations. But you cannot disprove them? Someone once said: "Science is what you do when you ask questions about what happens in controlled environments, but life is not a controlled environment." Personality must be studied as a human not a CERN detector. Humans are not neutrino nor higgs bosson.

 

[BurnedOut]

How do you test this? The above? I never mentioned introvert feelings or ISTP stuff either. It's so complicated. But you can describe many scenarios. Many psychological situations. But you cannot disprove them? Someone once said: "Science is what you do when you ask questions about what happens in controlled environments, but life is not a controlled environment." Personality must be studied as a human not a CERN detector. Humans are not neutrino nor higgs bosson.

If you cannot test it, how can you assert it even exists? How do you know if it's working or not? Why don't astrologers replace astronomers and reiki healing replace allopathic treatment? There is a reason why science exists and the reason is that it actually tells you if something exists or not. If architecture was based on MBTI and not math and statistics, how would you build things that actually last? Anywhere where science is rejected, society descends into chaos.

 

[BurnedOut]

Practicality does not define Truth.

Practicality is a test of reality. Aeroplanes use duralumin instead of steel for a reason and chemotherapy works and not homoeopathy.

I would challenge this premise. How are they mutually exclusive? Jung would not argue that one cannot use one function and not the other.

Introverting/Extroverting a function is a mutually exclusive event. If a person is leading with searching external patterns, how can he at the same searching patterns within? Brains are not like multi-core CPUs. It's a single-threaded processor with a really awesome low-powered parallel CPUs to deal with the analogue input. There is no AI optimized GPU for human brains to be able to have 16 functions. MBTI makes a strong claim - that these functions' hierarchy is stable and exists from childhood which goes against all developments in neuroscience, psychology and also historically misaligned with social research.

Science is not just limited to controlled environments. It is the old belief. We have cutting edge theories in all fields of social sciences. The problem with MBTI is that it gives them greater freedom of expression based on some universal assumptions that are unfounded. History can only explain what happened but statistics is the real predictor of events and even it is extremely conservative in its predictions unlike MBTI. This theoretical confidence is dangerous and the same of concept of caste system in India

 

[fractalwalrus]

Is everybody blind to logic? How can you go back to ascribing my criticism back to my INTP/J nature? I demonstrated the lack of coherence in the theory and how it manages to elude science. If you believe humans cannot fly, is it hard to believe that our brain cannot have 16 differentiated functions. Show me one place where MBTI's predictive power is of any use. A garbage theory has no empirical practicality.

I would not reduce your criticism of the system to the INTP/J nature (my counters did not consist of this, see above). The theory does not argue that we have 16 cognitive functions, but 8. This number may or may not be accurate/useful, but it is entirely possible that they correlate with actual brain functionality (Introverted thinking = decution, extraverted thinking = induction, for example). As for one place where MBTI is useful for predictive power, well, it is not currently certain due to lack of research, but many organizations believe it useful in the workplace: https://daily.jstor.org/why-companies-are-so-interested-in-your-myers-briggs-type/

Big 5 is a system that has been more thoroughly verified with study, and there are strong correlations between Big 5 dimensions and aspects of MBTI personality types. This correlative relationship would not guarantee MBTI's correctness, but it would be indicative of it having some predictive ability if it correlates with the truth. In other words, if the system is linguistically inaccurate in describing what is occurring, but happens to correlate with actual descriptive systems, then it could be said to have predictive power, albeit incomplete or inaccurate in explanation as to why it itself is predictive.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Introverting/Extroverting a function is a mutually exclusive event.

Ok, perhaps we disagree on the timeframe of mutual exclusion here. If you accept that premise that these two forms of a function are mutually exclusive at an given instant in time, it does not preclude you from using one in one instance and another in another instance. Perhaps you have concluded that your test results are claiming that if you are relatively even in strength on both forms of intuition that you must be using these 2 functions at any given time. The theory does not imply this. You can be strong in a function and not be using that function at any one particular time. Socionics would say that INTPs are usually strong in Introverted intuition, but do not ascribe much psychological value to it. In other words, they are not actively focused on this strength (because they do not give it much value), but are still naturally inclined to be strong in it when it is used.

There is no AI optimized GPU for human brains to be able to have 16 functions.

Jung claimed humans have 8 cognitive functions.

The problem with MBTI is that it gives them greater freedom of expression based on some universal assumptions that are unfounded.

The assumptions may or may not be unfounded. If the cognitive functions happen to correlate with other well studied mental phenomenon (ie extraverted intuition with divergent thinking and extraverted feeling with, say, a facet of emotional intelligence) then the assumptions are not unfounded, but simply a different way of describing a certain thing.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If you cannot test it, how can you assert it even exists? How do you know if it's working or not? Why don't astrologers replace astronomers and reiki healing replace allopathic treatment? There is a reason why science exists and the reason is that it actually tells you if something exists or not. If architecture was based on MBTI and not math and statistics, how would you build things that actually last? Anywhere where science is rejected, society descends into chaos.

Science accounts of only tiny fraction of your knowledge, that keeps you afloat.
Humanity lived without science for 1000 thousands of years.
Animals survive without science.
Scientism is the term you are looking for. Its the belief that science can explain everything and anything, that false science is good as science.

Reality is that with strict definition even climate change is not science.
Lots of things in medicine are not science, and are untested. They are simply empirical enough to pass as medicine.

Kind of reminds me of my grandfather who was dying. The doctor told him he will die, and its best he go home, make peace with it and write his last will.
So he went home with mysterious incurable disease that doctors did not know how to treat. Needless to say he was demoralized.
One day bunch of aunts showed up with mysterious ex-lire made of cabbage extract.
They told him to drink it all the time, and not to eat anything else.
He was sick, and frail, and had nothing to lose, so he lay in bed drinking cabbage extract made from some obscure folk medicine.

One day he payed a visit to his doctor. The doctor was shocked and asked how is he still alive. He said he is cured. The doctor did not believe him. It worked.
That cabbage extract worked and modern medicine was defeated by folk medicine.
Those old ladies did not know anything about human anatomy, or gastrointestinal problems. They knew nothing of science. They barely had elementary education.

To this day no one knows of cabbage cure, and it probably died with those ladies.
He lived happily many years after, until he got sick second time, had massive stroke and was left paralyzed in half of his body.

Many doctors laugh at chiropractors, but my mom had issues with her back bone since she was young, and often had been paralyzed by her back problems.
The doctor did not know how to help her, but she found out about this old lady, she was a old chiropractor, and so she went to her, and in less than 30 minutes my mom was magically cured. No science. Just old school chriopractics.

When I was young I was covered in sore lumps, that kept popping and watering on my skin. They were horrible and looked like the plague. My parents took me to a doctor and he looked at me and could not help me. Prescribed something that did nothing to my skin problem.
Then my parents heard of this Chinese acupuncturist who studied in China for 10 years. He was famous for healing anything.
Anyway I was 2 years old and he was at first reluctant to heal me as he was afraid Id move and stick the needles in my hand. SO my father said Ill hold him still.
My father told me to not move, and held me by the hand while the chiropractor administered 100s of needles into my body and few days later those watering lumps went away and I was cured.

3 stories where no science was needed. 3 stories where serious ailments were cured that modern medicine could not heal.


So you have been taught there is only one way to think, only one way to do things, only one way to know things, and you have been all your-life conditioned to think like a western professional. Natural that comes with superiority complex.

Both my parents have health issues that doctors cannot cure, and don't know what they are. They are getting older and more sick by time, but they visit doctors in hope to be cured, but to no avail. My mom has a lump in her eye and doctors just keep telling her it will just disappear. My father has sinus problems and has been operated, but he still gets inflammation and is in pain. He has back problems and there is no cure other than massive crippling operation that will make him immobile as he will have massive rod of metal in his neck.
Lately though hes been doing yoga and it helped a lot.

I have severe scoliosis , and doctor told me its for life, but lately I have been doing yoga, and people started telling me I look taller, I feel my back is getting more stronger and scoliosis is far less sever. I feel like my back is getting better.

I have extra help with meditation, it helped me reduce anxiety and racing thoughts, meditation also helped me battle intrusive thoughts and get in touch with my body.

No doctor could cure that.

So you keep telling yourself stories about how science can fix everything and that there is no value in other type of knowledge.
But unfortunately for you there are people like me who know from real life experience that is not true.

Science is crud limited and very expensive tool, that takes lot of effort, and on occasion it works marvelously, but there is not enough science to go around to fix everything. I cannot wait for science to solve my problems.

I do like science, it made the world better, but humans had survived millennia without science, and I doubt they were stupid ignorant intellectual imps.

 

[fluffy]

How do you test this? The above? I never mentioned introvert feelings or ISTP stuff either. It's so complicated. But you can describe many scenarios. Many psychological situations. But you cannot disprove them? Someone once said: "Science is what you do when you ask questions about what happens in controlled environments, but life is not a controlled environment." Personality must be studied as a human not a CERN detector. Humans are not neutrino nor higgs bosson.

If you cannot test it, how can you assert it even exists? How do you know if it's working or not? Why don't astrologers replace astronomers and reiki healing replace allopathic treatment? There is a reason why science exists and the reason is that it actually tells you if something exists or not. If architecture was based on MBTI and not math and statistics, how would you build things that actually last? Anywhere where science is rejected, society descends into chaos.

It's psychology, how do you apply science to it without first understanding life from personal experience. You cannot disprove gravity with five coin flips, you cannot say a car flys because it uses petrol. You are looking at the wrong level. You are a human so you understand humans right? It takes humans to program and analyze psychology data from computers. You don't get it for free saying oh the statistics says he buys gum so let's project this limited sample onto if he hates his mother. The human brain is the ultimate sampling device. Without it you don't get hypothesis for science in the first place. Try asking ChatGPT for science advice, it's a crap machine made by crap scientists. You assume science works that way. Like a ChatGPT (trust the science bro) did you get you degree from the back of a cereal box? That's not scientific. Be a human, do science correctly make your own hypothesis and don't be ChatGPT. Psychology is different and requires different statistics because people are humans bro. I mean all your observations from school are from personal experience. If so is that objective? Are people the way you presented them to be? What science can you use to prove that in the case? Or is it the case subjective stuff doesn't exist. Your a robot 100% objective. That's a delusion because subjective and objective both exist. It's called introvert and extraverted. Humans cannot exist without both. No subjectivity means you'd get everything in alignment but you don't. You logic is purely subjective and why should it be believed without appeal to your experience, character and psychology.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The human brain is the ultimate sampling device. Without it you don't get hypothesis for science in the first place.

Real.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Is everybody blind to logic? How can you go back to ascribing my criticism back to my INTP/J nature? I demonstrated the lack of coherence in the theory and how it manages to elude science. If you believe humans cannot fly, is it hard to believe that our brain cannot have 16 differentiated functions. Show me one place where MBTI's predictive power is of any use. A garbage theory has no empirical practicality.

i find that people who exhibit INTP traits are more interesting to me personally

and finding interesting people

seems like a "real world use case"

 

[fluffy]

@LOGICZOMBIE

You have often seemed to me to be ISTP

Have you considered it?

Have you looked into socionics version.

To me this explains your Ni tendencies like my ISFP sister how she gets things through key insights. Ne is divergent and you seem more convergent.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Is everybody blind to logic? How can you go back to ascribing my criticism back to my INTP/J nature? I demonstrated the lack of coherence in the theory and how it manages to elude science. If you believe humans cannot fly, is it hard to believe that our brain cannot have 16 differentiated functions. Show me one place where MBTI's predictive power is of any use. A garbage theory has no empirical practicality.

i find that people who exhibit INTP traits are more interesting to me personally

and finding interesting people

seems like a "real world use case"

I can second this observation. Generally I find that the unconventional individuals are more noteworthy, but this is likely due to their relative scarcity (since most people followed prescribed paths in life). I do not confine my determination of who is interesting to other INTPs alone, but to put it in MBTI terms, extraverted intuition and divergent thinking tends to produce novelty. I often find @fluffy to be interesting even if I do not always track what they are saying without a second look.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You have often seemed to me to be ISTP

Have you considered it?

Have you looked into socionics version.

To me this explains your Ni tendencies like my ISFP sister how she gets things through key insights. Ne is divergent and you seem more convergent.

i am not an expert at anything

and i don't insist that everything relates to practical-reality

so

no "S"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Ne is divergent and you seem more convergent.

i spent many years diverging

and i have now found a few key points

level seven intp