Moved from: ENTP info ~ [Serac & Hado quotewars]

[Ex-User (14663)]

MBTI is fun and all but don't use it to inform anything that matters.

Your own sense of what works for you is going to fit your specific case more than this set of trends. And that's assuming its veracity in the first place, which is far from beyond question.

So basically, in order for typology to help you:
1) MBTI has to be a good model. I don't think it is but since you're here you probably do?
2) You need to have correctly assessed her type, which, given the degree of disagreement even among MBTI experts, is unlikely at best.
3) The trends level predictions of MBTI need to better fit the scenario than the stuff you are able to observe from the first person. Individual people are insanely difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy from abstract models (ask any economist or social scientist).

Maybe take into account her extroversion and smarts. That seems like a certainty. Try to not leave her understimulated from your interactions. Beyond that? I'd just trust yourself. Having a common interest is in your favour. So is being the head of the group. While I wouldn't overtly leverage such things, they suggest you have at least a chance?

I quite disagree, @Hadoblado. To begin with, none of those three points need to be satisfied in order to make use of MBTI.

1) MBTI is not really a model but a taxonomy of behavioral traits
2) You don't need to do that unless you really believe there is such a thing as discrete types that each person is locked into. All you need to assume is that a person's behavioral traits are fairly stable within a certain time span.
3) Information you gain using MBTI and information you observe from a subjective perspective don't need to be mutually exclusive. And neither of these need to be used to "predict" people – you only need to understand them better.

I think MBTI can be useful in a scenario like this, because it gives you set of traits to look for in an objective way. I guess that's especially useful when the guy has a crush and is completely blinded by subjective judgments of her.

I've personally had some interesting results using MBTI with women. I recall this one ESFJ on whom I dropped a bunch of out-of-the-box ESFJ descriptions, saying "you probably want this and that, you probably feel this and that etc". Later she said that I was the only person who "really understood her".

So I guess my suggestion to OP is – just read a basic ENTP profile and start with that.

 

[Black Rose]

1) MBTI is not really a model but a taxonomy of behavioral traits

no

it does not follow behaviorism at all -
it is cognitive. At least going by Carl Jung.
The test is behaviorist (Isabel Briggs Myers)

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

no

it does not follow behaviorism at all -
it is cognitive. At least going by Carl Jung.
The test is behaviorist (Isabel Briggs Myers)

I would say it's neither behaviorist nor cognitive. Both of those are concerned with scientific theories, whereas MBTI doesn't really provide any theory at all. It just groups patterns of behaviors into discrete categories. I guess ostensibly, it has a theoretical component that deals with a theory of cognition, but not in a way that is up to par to scientific standards, and nor does that component provide any practical utility.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Serac
This feels like it could get nitpicky? Like you've got your own interpretation of what's being suggested in which it could technically be useful, but I don't think that's what I'm talking about and I don't think that's what the OP is suggesting? I could be wrong.

1) Even a taxonomy needs to be useful and relevant.
2) Sure, but the OP has already typed her and is asking questions specifically about ENTPs.
3) No it's not mutually exclusive, but MBTI relies on your natural social instinct anyway, then chucks in a bunch of top-down mumbo jumbo. MBTI only works if you can social (assuming the model is correct), and if you can social you don't need MBTI to tell you how to talk to girls.

@AK
Yeah it's a cognitive model, but nothing about how MBTI is utilised is cognitive. For all intents and purposes it's a behavioural model IMO.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

3) No it's not mutually exclusive, but MBTI relies on your natural social instinct anyway, then chucks in a bunch of top-down mumbo jumbo. MBTI only works if you can social (assuming the model is correct), and if you can social you don't need MBTI to tell you how to talk to girls.

Ah, good point. If you assume that MBTI is not useful, then it's not useful.

 

[Hadoblado]

That's not what I'm saying.

When you do MBTI stuff, you need to be able to tell stuff about the person you're MBTIing.

So if someone can't understand people without the MBTI model, it's unlikely they'll be able to utilise the MBTI model either.

So when you say:

3) Information you gain using MBTI and information you observe from a subjective perspective don't need to be mutually exclusive. And neither of these need to be used to "predict" people – you only need to understand them better.

You're talking about it as if MBTI just gives you information you wouldn't otherwise have. It doesn't.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You're talking about it as if MBTI just gives you information you wouldn't otherwise have. It doesn't.

I would say it does. Without it, we would not even have the notion of extroversion vs introversion.

 

[Hadoblado]

This quote wars thing between us doesn't seem to be working out. It feels like we're talking past each other and not really engaging with what the other person is saying. I don't really want to respond to you because that would imply you were addressing what I was saying in the first place.

 

[redbaron]

Without it, we would not even have the notion of extroversion vs introversion.

10/10 troll

well done

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

This quote wars thing between us doesn't seem to be working out. It feels like we're talking past each other and not really engaging with what the other person is saying. I don't really want to respond to you because that would imply you were addressing what I was saying in the first place.

huh? You claimed that in order for MBTI to be useful in practice, a bunch of assumptions needed to hold. I argued that they don't need to hold, and that it does derive its value from the taxonomy. But then you are trying to have it both ways by saying 1) That the Jungian part of is nonsense (which it is but is not relevant to the question at hand) and 2) If it does have components with practical utility, they are not needed because if you assume you have psychological omniscience then you can analyze human psychology on your own (which is a another non sequitur in this context as it is a pure hypothetical which is not very realistic).

I guess another question that comes to mind is: why are you doing a psychology degree if you need psychological omniscience to make use of psychological models, and psychological models are redundant if you have psychological omniscience? Your degree is a waste of time by basic logic here.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

10/10 troll

well done

"troll"? I'm not familiar with these terms used by 13-year olds on the Internet (from whom you seem to be deriving all your intellectual inspiration)

 

[Black Rose]

@Serac

What haldo is saying is that MBTI only has utility if you first have social intelligence. You assume haldo denies the utility because you deny social intelligence is necessary for MBTI to used effectively. A non-socially intelligent person can lean MBTI but if they are so useless in social intelligence they break too many unsaid rules socially to relate to people even when understanding MBTI. And you did exactly what haldo said you would do which is to say you know what he is trying to say when you, in fact, are saying what he is not trying to say. You are not addressing what he is saying at the same time saying that you are doing so. He is not saying no utility for MBTI is there but only that social intelligence makes MBTI effective. No social intelligence and only MBTI is similar to being autistic and using MBTI. It helps some but the socially intelligent person is more natural socially and won't simply be following a rules set for social interactions with the MBTI. MBTI tells you only the cognitive temperments of people and proclivities but there is more to social intelligence than that. You need to know peoples emotions and the social atmosphere, you may even need to know and predict behavior. MBTI can tell you the way people are drawn to what they are but then acting on this information requires the ability to in the moment know the social situation. MBTI does not tell you completely how to appropriately act socially. MBTI helps in understanding girls but you can naturally interact with them without strictly knowing MBTI. That does not mean MBTI has no utility. You misunderstand haldo on this.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Serac
Can you just stop?

Referring to it as a model is fine.

Whether type is permanent or fluid is irrelevant since he's already typed her. It's just important that he he's typed her correctly.

I never said these things were mutually exclusive, but that one relies on the other.

I never justified MBTI not working in a circular fashion.

I never said anything to do with the origin of the word introversion/extroversion, but if I did I'd point out that Jung invented the terms before the MBTI existed, meaning it's very possible for someone to use them outside the bounds of MBTI. I'd also point out that extroversion/introversion is a primary facet of a whole bunch of models used by people who don't know about MBTI, and it's just a part of language now. I don't even know why you brought this up.

I never claimed omniscience, or that it was a requirement for anything.

To be clear, I don't want to continue this conversation, but I do want to impart my reasoning for discontinuing. It's not just that you're not listening, it's that you then habitually attack whatever I say regardless of its content. I didn't want to talk about the origin of the word extroversion, or the pedantics of whether it's a model or a taxonomy, or whether type is static or fluid. Multiple times, you held the clarity of my post hostage against me avoiding a response. I just wanted to give my response to the OP and leave, but every time, you twist my words into something I didn't say and attack it. There was a discussion worth having somewhere in there, but it's never going to happen when you conduct yourself this way.

 

[DolceGuevara]

I smell a ban.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Serac

What haldo is saying is that MBTI only has utility if you first have social intelligence. You assume haldo denies the utility because you deny social intelligence is necessary for MBTI to used effectively. A non-socially intelligent person can lean MBTI but if they are so useless in social intelligence they break too many unsaid rules socially to relate to people even when understanding MBTI. And you did exactly what haldo said you would do which is to say you know what he is trying to say when you, in fact, are saying what he is not trying to say. You are not addressing what he is saying at the same time saying that you are doing so. He is not saying no utility for MBTI is there but only that social intelligence makes MBTI effective. No social intelligence and only MBTI is similar to being autistic and using MBTI. It helps some but the socially intelligent person is more natural socially and won't simply be following a rules set for social interactions with the MBTI. MBTI tells you only the cognitive temperments of people and proclivities but there is more to social intelligence than that. You need to know peoples emotions and the social atmosphere, you may even need to know and predict behavior. MBTI can tell you the way people are drawn to what they are but then acting on this information requires the ability to in the moment know the social situation. MBTI does not tell you completely how to appropriately act socially. MBTI helps in understanding girls but you can naturally interact with them without strictly knowing MBTI. That does not mean MBTI has no utility. You misunderstand haldo on this.

This is what he wrote:

No it's not mutually exclusive, but MBTI relies on your natural social instinct anyway, then chucks in a bunch of top-down mumbo jumbo. MBTI only works if you can social (assuming the model is correct), and if you can social you don't need MBTI to tell you how to talk to girls.

I.e: in order to use MBTI and gain utility from it, you need social skills. And if you have social skills then you don't need MBTI.

So let's break this down in a logical fashion (also called "twisting people's words" by some):
The last statement, "if you have social skills then you don't need MBTI" implies that the set of knowledge in MBTI is a subset of the set of social skills. In that case it is impossible to have a MBTI skill without having the same Social skill. Then the first statement, "to use MBTI you need social skills" can imply several things:
1) You need all skills that cover the set of MBTI skills in order to use MBTI
2) You need some skills in the set of both MBTI and Social to use MBTI
3) You need a Social skill that can be outside the set of MBTI skills
If he means 1, then you cannot use MBTI unless you have all skills in he MBTI set and possibly some skills outside that set, in which case you gain a lot by learning new MBTI skills if you didn't have them to begin with. If he means 2 then you are lacking at least some elements of the MBTI skills, in which case again you gain knowledge by learning MBTI skills. If he means 3 then you definitely gain knowledge by learning MBTI skills because once again you acquire skills you didn't have. In all of the three cases, the claim that MBTI is redundant is false.

The only way to make his case consistent is to assume at the outset that everyone already has all the skills in the MBTI set, which is what I mean by "psychological omniscience". But if you assume that, then 1) the whole argument is circular and 2) has nothing to do with reality, as very few people are born with all knowledge contained in MBTI – especially considering the fact that OP explicitly asks for information about MBTI that can be used in his case.

 

[Black Rose]

@Serac

The idea that a person would have all possible forms of social skills to understand MBTI is really, really strange. That you consider this a possible interpretation of what haldo said or believes is a lack of social understanding on your part. He could not possibly mean that. - Having a social skill namely talking to girls requires no awareness of the existence of MBTI, if you can get the girl to like you and learn about her then MBTI is not useless but the social skills were enough to gage compatibility without it. The middle one of having some social skills would combine with MBTI enhance understanding of the girl's natural tendencies by observation and interaction and psychologically you know and can predict the reactions to different situations by the MBTI template most often or not. But like the last one you just need to get to know her. MBTI is not the main picture.

1) You do not need all possible forms of social skills to use MBTI (omniscience is impossible) number 1 is ridiculous and no one takes this position.
2) You can use social skill, having some of them, combined with MBTI to make predictions as a template. You easily can choose to just get to know the girl having some skills in social.
3) Getting to know someone can be the one social skill you have but getting to know people is more than one skill so the point is kind of mute. You do not get far getting to know people with one social skill. Yet if they study MBTI this is a good skill set to have for prediction. But this is no substitute for the classical experience of social interaction to figure people out. You may know her MBTI but can you understand body language and cues and emotions. Even with MBTI one skill won't cut it. MBTI is not complete Theory of Mind.

 

[Hadoblado]

Moved because derail.
Serac I chose your post as the thread cutoff because that was the start of the derail. However, despite you defining your own views in reference to mine, your own views that do address the OP are laced in there and I'd encourage you to provide them there once more. But please, as your own position, not just not[Hado].

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Serac

The idea that a person would have all possible forms of social skills to understand MBTI is really, really strange. That you consider this a possible interpretation of what haldo said or believes is a lack of social understanding on your part. He could not possibly mean that. - Having a social skill namely talking to girls requires no awareness of the existence of MBTI, if you can get the girl to like you and learn about her then MBTI is not useless but the social skills were enough to gage compatibility without it. The middle one of having some social skills would combine with MBTI enhance understanding of the girl's natural tendencies by observation and interaction and psychologically you know and can predict the reactions to different situations by the MBTI template most often or not. But like the last one you just need to get to know her. MBTI is not the main picture.

1) You do not need all possible forms of social skills to use MBTI (omniscience is impossible) number 1 is ridiculous and no one takes this position.
2) You can use social skill, having some of them, combined with MBTI to make predictions as a template. You easily can choose to just get to know the girl having some skills in social.
3) Getting to know someone can be the one social skill you have but getting to know people is more than one skill so the point is kind of mute. You do not get far getting to know people with one social skill. Yet if they study MBTI this is a good skill set to have for prediction. But this is no substitute for the classical experience of social interaction to figure people out. You may know her MBTI but can you understand body language and cues and emotions. Even with MBTI one skill won't cut it. MBTI is not complete Theory of Mind.

I agree with everything you wrote. But then there is no viable interpretation here that makes MBTI redundant. There's no doubt that MBTI is an insufficient substitute for real-life social experience, and I couldn't agree more that the latter should be the main strategy for the situation in question. In fact my best recommendation for the guy in the main thread would probably be: just go out to bars and talk to a ton of girls. But the topic of that thread revolved around how to use MBTI in particular, so I gave my reply using that as a constraint. But either way, this is not to say that MBTI will not be helpful as an additional tool, and as I wrote earlier, I have had experiences where it was indeed useful.

 

[Reluctantly]

For what it's worth, Big 5 seems to be taken a lot more seriously over MBTI, though they do share the introvert/extrovert dimension. Turns out, MBTI being prescriptive makes it a bit unhelpful in a clinical setting. But I guess if you isolate its traits and use that independently from types, then maybe it's not much different than Big 5.

 

[Hadoblado]

Big 5 is taken a lot more seriously, but I still don't think you should use personality models for talking to girls ~

 

[kora]

Big 5 is taken a lot more seriously, but I still don't think you should use personality models for talking to girls ~

But hado girls are odd creatures we need specific different sets of rules and data analysis to interact with them, without such a systematic manual we will never be able to compute the emotions proper and put in correct input to get predicted and satisfying output of touching lips or seeing the bobs proper.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I am convinced now. I will be slaying pussy with Hado's method from now on, which consists of "trust yourself" and "find common interests with her".

What else? Compliment her on her dress?