Scientists are often bad personality type for science.

[ZenRaiden]

Here is my reasoning why big five model is the biggest hit of decade and MBTI is falling by way side.
First of all part of problem with MBTI is that its monopolized and monetized, so that makes it less accessible.

The good news is that MBTI is not that sophisticated so monetization of it does not make much of a negative ripple effect on its popularity and usage. If anything it makes MBTI lose to interpretation and thus natural evolution.

So what is wrong with Big Five? Well its a statistical model of personality that calls an egg and egg and a horse a horse.
And of course all the scientist (insecure nerd types, who hate being wrong) are sticking to this model, because how could the numbers be wrong right?
The main issue with statistical models that call a spade a spade is that they have actually very little explanation power.
You can fit any data in this and never understand the people.......
I mean if I call you fat, and you are fat, do I actually know you???
If I call you conscientiousness. What the hell do I really know about you? That you did your homework even when your parents told you you don't have to? That you were afraid of getting a bad grade and you make a good umpa lumpa in chocolate factory?? So what?

MBTI is something scientist don't want to touch. And good!!! Better they don't or they screw up the fun!
MBTI actually looks at people. And they already know that conscientiousness is not a single factor in personality.
They for instance know already that INTPs will do anything to study quantum physics, but fail to pay their bills on time.
So what they are stereotyping people? So what where is Big Five not doing the same????

Big FIve model of personality is literally guilty of all the transgressions of MBTI, but worse.
Only it mascarades as better because its tells people the exact truth. Which is you are fat, and therefore with might psychological logic it means you are fat. Oh thanks mr. psychology expert you just told me what I knew and everyone else knew all along, way before I took your test. Big whoo hoooo.

I think in about decade or two Big Five will belong to the grave yard of psychology theories where it belongs with lobotomies and such.

I am not even joking. People think that statistics are true. And yes they are true to some extent.
Some of our behaviors are fixed. That does not mean we are actually people who behave this or that way because that is who we are. Environment and other factors with Big Five are not explained.

We know we can fit anything into statistics if we want to. But people are not numbers.

There is a reason why statistically there are billionaires with IQ 100 who made themselves rich, and no one has an explanation for that. Except there is an explanation for that. IQ does not measure intelligence.

Same way Big Five does not measure personality. In fact conflating personality with Big Five is like mixing up your hat with your head.

MBTI at least tries to get closer to typology. It does not actually explain much of our personality, but its way closer to who we as persons are as Big Five.

SO why scientists don't support MBTI? Because A) Psychology is not science B) They are chickens that are afraid to make a mistake.

Kudos to people like Dario Nardi who are not afraid to go where others are just plain and simple to scared to go.

 

[Black Rose]

MBTI works because of orientations. We perceive internals and externals. We make judgments internally and externally. Perceptions are abstract or concrete and judgments are emotional or inferential. This is not taxonomy because taxonomies classify shapes and typology is about directions. The direction of cognition in and out. And cognition is rational or irrational. Rational means that is used for decision-making and is under volition. Irrational means it just happens and is not under the control of consciousness. We have both a relationship to ourselves and the environment.

I categorize introverted intuition as convergent and extraverted intuition as divergent.

But what is the difference? In creativity tests, they ask you to name all things you can do with bricks. But that is not creativity. Many dimensions of creativity exist like intelligence. But I would specify that Ni is A to B to C to D and Ne is branching i.e. combinatorial. Look at all the way things could be vs. all the way things will be.

Sensiing is the same kind of division. Se is eyes, Si is ears, and gut (insula). Se sees all at once and is stable, Si shifts around from all minute noises. Si is the primitive humans in the wild 2 million B.C. Se is combined with Ni to see the future.

The feeling function is empathy, but Fi does so by being sensitive to others and Fe is unaffected by others in such a way as to be uncomfortable or drawn into that energy.

Carl Jung distanced himself from Freud for the very reason Freud was Te well Jung was Ti. Te is highly mischaracterized. Te is visual-spatial well Ti is verbal rational. This creates the greatest conflicts, Te is always looking for "evidence" and Ti is looking for sound reasoning. Induction vs deduction. The very essence of conflict is the left vs. right brain. Te sees Ti as cold and Ti sees Te as hot-headed. They wrap around each other like a blind and a deaf man intellectually.

INTJ sees things as going into one place, With Te they infer what will lead to that situation, by the goal they set out with Fi, and then look where to go next Se. Over time they have stochastically mapped out reality to the fullest extent.

INTP deducts a structure of what can be Ne and this lets them lay out the composite knowledge they have in a detached way creating a temporarially perfect impenetrable construct. As long as they can get new information they can reformat this construct with immutable axiomatic logic. Then it is only a matter of listening. because listening will bring all combinations into the light and all combinations will have no way of subverting their mental perfection. All is accounted for.

Being INFP I decide what possibilities are good or bad on a continuum and I decide which option to pursue. What is the best way to make things right? What is it I must infer about? I listen and feel out the situation. My creativity is about finding perfect symmetries in aesthetic things. I like cute objects.

 

[ZenRaiden]

@Animekitty I was trying to hate on big five, and defend MBTI.
But your lecture is noted. Not sure it directly relates to what I was saying, but as long as its part of topic what can I say, you are right.

I am currently pumping my Si and making it into a steel trap.
Once done I will be able to remember and recall everything I need to.
Using mnemonics and various ways of thinking.
Just in case non cares.

Also do you drink coffee?
I am still dead inside, but much happier about it.

 

[sushi]

both are complete crap in my opinion, humans are too complex to be defined like this.

everyday i meet a random stranger and try to evaluate, these models and paradigms help nothing in terms of uitilty. i might as well ask for his or her birthday and astrology.

maybe ai avatars mimicking real people and real life personalities can tell us more accurate data. the best way to size new people up is probably work as a criminal profiler or a human resource recruiter, and i doubt they use these two models in those professions.

 

[ZenRaiden]

criminal profiler

Not to discredit these people, because it takes skills, but there are innocent people put away for life or death trial on daily basis.
There is no such thing as perfect criminal profiling either.

MBTI never claims to be perfect. I don't know where the idea comes from that it has to be perfect. What does perfect even mean to begin with?

Secondly "it does not work" is common problem for people who cannot use the tool.
Since you were never taught how to use the tool, the fact you don't know exactly how to use it is not your fault.

I did not know or know how to use MBTI either professionally, but I can see it merit, but that is after studying it for a decade now. On my own, in my spare time, working it out.

For instance I have seen many youtubers comment on INTPs.
There are stereotypes on INTPs that don't always apply true.
But a lot of INTP problems are so common and so routine when it comes to MBTI that its almost impossible to see a pattern.

Some common INTP problems are - Late bloomers
- socially isolate
- prefer thinking over doing
over analyzing to a fault
being simultaneously too confident and too unconfined
self critical and doubt everything including reality
tend to socialize by being a social chameleon.
tend to not enjoy school
tend to communicate differently from normies
tend not want to lead or be led.
tend to be independent minded, but socially constipated.
prefer logic and reason over emotions rarely trust intuitions of feelings in decisions
having hard time expressing emotions directly and when they do they come of as childlike and primitive

and that is just top of my head.

Tell me honestly how many personality systems got this right about some people????
We always had INTPs in society. We just did not have a name for it.
Everyone knows INTPs in real life. They are everywhere.
We just don't recognize them as INTPs. We rather see them as Bob or Jane.
MBTI only helps to bring a cluster of data into a set group of data points so we INTPs can for example more seamlessly interface with human species. Just kidding.

 

[Black Rose]

People are describing how words define them in the Big 5.
Word association with the self. That is an abstract attitude.
MBTI is more like blood flow.
Blood flows in a direction and so does cognition.
16 ways, because of two directions in 4 areas.
Going in and going out.

Big 5 only is what we may contain as to:

(O) staying with the old routine or trying new things (just sensuality)
(C) being orderly vs. being chaotic and unstructured (OCD basal ganglia)
(E) being expressive and full of energy vs. lethargic and cold (bipolar?)
(A) telling people to piss off vs being polite (temperament)
(N) having bad feelings vs. having good feelings all the time (mood)

MBTI:

MBTI:

INTJ: convergent, inductive, intrinsic, eyes
INTP: deductive, divergent, gut, extrinsicity
INFP: intrinsic, divergent, gut, induction
INFJ: convergent, extrinsic, deductive, eyes

 

[ZenRaiden]

People are describing how words define them in the Big 5.
Word association with the self. That is an abstract attitude.
MBTI is more like blood flow.
Blood flows in a direction and so does cognition.
16 ways, because of two directions in 4 areas.
Going in and going out.

Big 5 only is what we may contain as to:

(O) staying with the old routine or trying new things (just sensuality)
(C) being orderly vs. being chaotic and unstructured (OCD basal ganglia)
(E) being expressive and full of energy vs. lethargic and cold (bipolar?)
(A) telling people to piss off vs being polite (temperament)
(N) having bad feelings vs. having good feelings all the time (mood)

MBTI:

MBTI:

INTJ: convergent, inductive, intrinsic, eyes
INTP: deductive, divergent, gut, extrinsicity
INFP: intrinsic, divergent, gut, induction
INFJ: convergent, extrinsic, deductive, eyes

I see some merit in what you are writing, but you put awful little time in making clear what the thinking is. Not that I cannot connect the dots, but what is your point? Again with wall of text?
My main point of OP we under estimated MBTI because it was not clear cut.
For two women who had no idea what they were doing it is as perfect gets. Not to mention to self taught women who had no clue what psychology is.

Comparably OCEAN is statistical which is nice. It tells us nothing of people.
Bi Polar is not a personality trait. Its an extreme malfunction of the brain much like OCD.
Also you can be disagreeable and polite.
Being polite is function of being civil. You can for example be agreeable and inpolite to a horrible degree.
As for OCEAN none of the domains it measures tell us who you are.
Openness is selective. Conscientiousness is selective. Extroversion and Introversion is situational, we draw out and draw in energy based on many facets of our lives.
Being Calm is also selective. My father is calm, but internally I know he is limbic type.
He just cannot for life of him keep cool at certain situations, but at the same time he can cool down once he gets upset sooner.
Nothing in OCEAN seems realistic what I see in people. Literally nothing, except surface level social expectations.

As for MBTI I get what you are saying.
I would agree I am divergent gut extrinsic deductive, but not to overwhelming degree.
I certainly don't operate on deductive all the time as that happens to be limited ability of use today. Inductive hell yeah.

 

[dr froyd]

the big 5 is a very pragmatic, americanized approach to psychology; "shut up and calculate" as richard feynman once said. MBTI and its roots in carl jung belongs to a more european approach to science; someone sitting down, smoking a pipe, and thinking about things.

it's the same trend in physics. The reason there has been practically zero progress since einstein, bohr, etc, is that everyone is just doing experiments and collecting statistics, and nobody is thinking. (tellingly the only "progress" - inventing dark energy and dark matter - is stuff they invented so that old theories fit the data, instead of making new theories)

so that is where big 5 leaves you: it "works" in the same sense that you can but dogs into categories like "aggressive" or "passive". It doesn't help you understand anything, but it "works" in that it achieves its practical end; putting people into personality buckets.

 

[Black Rose]

Comparably OCEAN is statistical which is nice. It tells us nothing of people.

Nothing in OCEAN seems realistic what I see in people. Literally nothing, except surface level social expectations.

You only say this because you are an abstract thinker.

In therapy group today I mentioned the MBTI and the ESFJ counselor said they think MBTI is a waste of time when they can get to know people just by talking to them. To them, Big 5 makes more sense because it is realistic to them. MBTI is surface level because it is abstract, and goes all over the place but never is about the person personally on a relational level. I mean I tried to explain MBTI to her but it was not going to happen. She understands people not by theory but in practice.

You received a wall of text with no context because I was making plain what MBTI and Big 5 actually are so there would be no ambiguity to what we were discussing. So what are we discussing? We are discussing what Big 5 is and what MBTI is and why people do not understand them. I mean we can also discuss the enneagram right and why it is surface level also right? But people understand in different ways like the ESFJ consular I know. How deep can you actually go? How abstract and comprehensive? OCEAN is about real things but they are situational, true That is the best science can do until we have brain scanners to delineate actual MBTI patterns in the brain. But then what if MBTI the 16 types can be broken down into a total of 256 subtypes or something once we do have brain scanners? we just do not know. Then what if we can do socionics and list all types interactions and then list type interactions by age gender and culture? Where is the limit?

This requires big data analytics and I am sure we will discover things we have not in the past but MBTI is a framework. A starting point. Not the grand be-all theory. Big 5 is statistical sure but all science requires models and then those models can be tested. It is just that people cannot think in terms of models utill they are mature enough and abstract enough. Because explainability is going to take some time in the neuro-scientific field before people accept that MBTI is not astrology. IQ is in a similar situation.

 

[ZenRaiden]

the big 5 is a very pragmatic, americanized approach to psychology; "shut up and calculate" as richard feynman once said. MBTI and its roots in carl jung belongs to a more european approach to science; someone sitting down, smoking a pipe, and thinking about things.

it's the same trend in physics. The reason there has been practically zero progress since einstein, bohr, etc, is that everyone is just doing experiments and collecting statistics, and nobody is thinking. (tellingly the only "progress" - inventing dark energy and dark matter - is stuff they invented so that old theories fit the data, instead of making new theories)

so that is where big 5 leaves you: it "works" in the same sense that you can but dogs into categories like "aggressive" or "passive". It doesn't help you understand anything, but it "works" in that it achieves its practical end; putting people into personality buckets.

This reminds me of a time in highschool where all students got a fail grade in biology.
The teacher sat us all down, took up a sheet of paper put it on projector, that sheet was from the book. Then she proceeded to point at the biological cycle and repeat what was on the sheet of paper.

It was then it dawned on me that teachers often do not have a effing clue what they are teaching. Not that I had any respect for them previously, but the number of teachers who could take a work book and actually explain it was near 0.
I used to have a minor complex I missed out on school, but the more I learn the more I realize I missed nothing. That school was just data eating and data dumping exercise.
The part where we think about stuff, even in less obvious ways is no longer part of schooling. Which is also missing in science and medicine.
We just do not train people to think.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You only say this because you are an abstract thinker.

No. I say this because this pattern of personalities is more or less correct on so many levels that people all over the world can agree that certain MBTI type behaves certain way. Its messy and imperfect. But its still true.
The patterns MBTI captures are bigger and more broad, than more obvious patterns.

Your counselor is a trained person in understanding people. Where did she get here know how, other than people who sat with people and talked with people and got to know people, people like Freud, Jung, Adler. People who observed and made notes, and made it point of their careers to think about people. Hence your counselor can now sit in front of you and act all smug. She would never figure this stuff on her own.
The amount of work that Jung put into observing people goes into 1000s of hours.

You received a wall of text with no context because I was making plain what MBTI and Big 5 actually are so there would be no ambiguity to what we were discussing.

There was no ambiguity for me.

We are discussing what Big 5 is and what MBTI is and why people do not understand them.

MBTI is understood. But there is as far as I know no official free manual on it. Frankly even if there were a official free manual on MBTI I would prefer youtubers, who spent 100s of hours using and harnessing their observational skills and using MBTI as versatile tool, with artistic license. Because MBTI is more than meets the eye.
You can use it and extrapolate from it more than it officially "allows for" if you are willing to be creative with it.

mean we can also discuss the enneagram right and why it is surface level also right? But people understand in different ways like the ESFJ consular I know. How deep can you actually go?

Enneagram is good, but its very J ergo it makes conclusions for you.
I like MBTI it serves to see patterns, but not necessarily iron clad conclusions. Leaves more room for growth.
Each MBTI type can be understood in multiple ways. For instance humans mature differently and act differently in every decade of their life. A 20 something INTP is going to be different than 38 something INTP. Not something you learn from MBTI, but you can see it in real life. Your grandpa is going to be different from your father in so many ways.

That is the best science can do

I would rephrase it and throw a gauntlet in face of those researchers and say "That is the best lazy science can do!"- Humans are uncertain variable. That is what makes our interactions such an headache. Trying to tidy our personality into some constipated box, is not going to work. Not if it has 5 domains that we can see from mile away. I mean you don't have to tell me someone is industrious. Its called hard working person, in normie speak. I don't need to be a scientist to see that someone working from 6am to 6pm is hard working. I mean psychologist are no Einsteins.

brain scanners to delineate actual MBTI patterns in the brain.

We already have and use those. The only problem is they are expensive and require lots of money for research. Mostly used to treat acute medical issues.
So having a brain scan for personality is last on our priority list.
We can literally see how our brains read, do math, or respond to love or fear through these scanners.
Dario Nardi as far as I know is the only one who is doing this in the cheapest way possible. I think the funny thing is this guy has done more work than most people think he has. If he plays his cards right he may die a rich man.

256 subtypes or something once we do have brain scanners?

So? I already know that INTP can be broken down to several different subtypes.
Right up my alley. That is what I want.

I can already think of several dozen subtypes of just INTPs, my favorite category virgin supreme / courtesy of MBTI memes.

Its pretty hilarious that people think this is some sort of problem. ITs not.

Then what if we can do socionics and list all types interactions and then list type interactions by age gender and culture? Where is the limit?

Pretty sure science is closer to explaining our internal mechanisms. It started with psychodynamic theories with Freud.
The wheels that make us who we are, are not that complicated.
We all have several common complexes and several compensations and several defense mechanisms, that are old as ice age.

This requires big data analytics

Everything is big data today.
I studied psychology a little on the side, and I can tell you people are not that complicated. I can see through people its scary shit.
Most situations in day to day people are black boxes though.
You need data points for sure to know people.
What those data points are - is important.
Because we both may like chocolate ice cream, but one of us might be a truck driver, and the other a professor.

Point is big data, is bulldozer approach. It sucks.

that MBTI is not astrology

We know people intuitively or even analytically. On day to day basis we interact.
Same way we can know people like this organically MBTI is not astrology.
Astrology, is planetary motions and star charts and energies that are categorized based on arbitrary historical references.
Knowing that someone is inward and someone outward is hardly astrology on any level. That alone is certainly one category all psychologist can agree on.
I even questioned the veracity of introversion and extroversion.
There is lack of nuance there too. We are not merely one or the other.
But for simplicity sake we think in binary. It just makes our life easier.

IQ is in a similar situation.

Also there is a researcher who discovered like 250 something types of intelligence. Not sure what his name was.
Obviously no one likes his research, because its a headache to deal with. Not that he is wrong..... no one just gives a flying shit about it, because its that complicated.
If you want to be bored to tears, I can find you a link to the guy.

 

[Black Rose]

The patterns MBTI captures are bigger and more broad, than more obvious patterns.

When does a pattern become obvious? at what resolution?

MBTI could be a constipated little box at a higher level of abstraction we don't see.

When is MBTI going to be replaced you think?

What would be the paradigm?

 

[ZenRaiden]

When does a pattern become obvious? at what resolution?

When people can implicitly understand what it means without further explanation.

When is MBTI going to be replaced you think?

The new way people use MBTI already means MBTI as was originally invented no longer exists.
People have all kinds of theories from simple to wild.
Some of those theories though tend to converge.
The emergent property of this is called "wisdom of crowds"

The Wisdom of Crowds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What would be the paradigm?

Personality is of interest to people who want to get along better with others.
Naturally MBTI attracts people people.
People who are so into understanding people that they don't give up.
So whatever progress is made by MBTI will always yield better results than before.
Paradigm shift will come when people amass so much info that the previous types will no longer be as useful to them. Ergo some people exclusively focus on cog functions.
Others focus on profiles.
Which ever way its always only better.

Its few scientists vs lots and lots of people.

 

[Hourglass]

What feels corny to me is that the big 5 spells out OCEAN, as in a word that is clearly a fabrication

Why not MOUNTAIN or SKY or WATER?

There is a sometimes a reason for odd-sounding scientific or more precisely defined terms - accuracy of meaning and logic

The “branding” of “ocean” made it easier to remember than MBTI so it probably became more widespread in that sense

 

[scorpiomover]

Here is my reasoning why big five model is the biggest hit of decade and MBTI is falling by way side.
First of all part of problem with MBTI is that its monopolized and monetized, so that makes it less accessible.

Big Five's categories are also monetizable.

• Open or Closed: Would most employers prefer to hire an open-minded employee or a closed-minded employee?
• Agreeable or Disagreeable: Would most employers prefer to hire an agreeable employee or a disagreeable employee?
• Conscienscious or Not conscienscious: Would most employers prefer to hire a conscienscious employee or an employee that is not conscienscious?
• Assertive or Turbulent: Would most employers prefer to hire an assertive employee or a turbulent employee?
• Social or Reserved: Would most employers prefer to hire a social employee or a reserved employee?

It's design indicates its traits are directly translatable to particular jobs.

But you cannot monetize what has already been patented.

So you need to make a new system.

 

[Hourglass]

Here is my reasoning why big five model is the biggest hit of decade and MBTI is falling by way side.
First of all part of problem with MBTI is that its monopolized and monetized, so that makes it less accessible.

Big Five's categories are also monetizable.

• Open or Closed: Would most employers prefer to hire an open-minded employee or a closed-minded employee?
• Agreeable or Disagreeable: Would most employers prefer to hire an agreeable employee or a disagreeable employee?
• Conscienscious or Not conscienscious: Would most employers prefer to hire a conscienscious employee or an employee that is not conscienscious?
• Assertive or Turbulent: Would most employers prefer to hire an assertive employee or a turbulent employee?
• Social or Reserved: Would most employers prefer to hire a social employee or a reserved employee?

It's design indicates its traits are directly translatable to particular jobs.

But you cannot monetize what has already been patented.

So you need to make a new system.

Openness - willingness to try new things
Conscientiousness - self-discipline or what employers perceive to be self-discipline?
Extravertedness - to what extent is energy drawn or pulled from others
Agreeableness - apparently synonymous with being compassionate, which is a false indicator… is being compassionate agreeing with someone who is in pain because of being lied to?
Neuroticism - this category irks me to no end in how the information is being used against or introspective thinkers - i view it as cautiousness yet it seems to be viewed as non-assertive

opposite of O is ???
opposite of C is inexertionary
opposite of E is introvertedness - to what extent is there mindfulness about energy and space preservation when with others
Opposite of A is disagreeableness but shouldn’t this be dissentfulness ? the ability to express a different or opposing idea than the previously expressed ideas? Wouldn’t this be considered open-mindedness???
Opposite of N is apparently associated with fearlessness

OCEAN seems like it it trying to search for a certain set of types of people and appears to have much more bias than MBTI - it doesn’t appear to elevate strengths of non-conforming individuals which feels as if MBTI upholds a higher standard of human morality

 

[sushi]

brain scans for personality is actually a good idea for accurate data.

i think ai would be able to simulate different personalities for large population of people in the future
personality is just forms, its about how many forms people can assume and have.

 

[Black Rose]

brain scans for personality is actually a good idea for accurate data.

i think ai would be able to simulate different personalities for large population of people in the future
personality is just forms, its about how many forms people can assume and have.

We can definitely get confirmation of MBTI by the flow directions of energy in the brain.

All the pathways will be known as to what is observed on the outside by MBTI.

 

[Hourglass]

brain scans for personality is actually a good idea for accurate data.

While this is an interesting idea, this would be an extremely expensive endeavor and it wouldn’t be accurate data that is a direct output - it would be likely be clusters of activity and other information that could mean thousands of possible things depending on many conditions

 

[Hourglass]

personality is just forms, its about how many forms people can assume and have.

It’s also about how many “forms” we actually need - anything can be grouped into a part of personality but it doesn’t need to be a label for one’s personality.

If there are 1000 personalities and you identify with 3 out of 1000 “personalities”, yet someone else identifies with all 1000 personalities then what is one person that identifies with 1 personality versus the other person who identifies with many more personalities?

This idea is still interesting but my sense is that it feels like it would be a way to distract the world from all the other massive global problems we have yet to figure out

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think there are some pretty major questions we need to ask that answers for are always taken for granted, but not always clear.

For instance - What is personality? A lot of people assume we have a clear idea what this is. I am not convinced we do.
The definitions for personality that do exist, are often lacking.

MBTI I trust is trying to answer the question how people fit into jobs.
Meyers Briggs ladies were trying to fit person to the best job.
Obviously their ideas were limited by time period these statistics and ideas came from.
But subsequent popular use of MBTI is not short of helpful in all areas of life. Less efficient, yes. Not useless though.
For instance Carl Jung had two patients and one was a woman sensor and the other was highly intuitive man, and they struggled with communication.
Today they would probably break up due to this.
Jung just explained to them they communicate differently.

Lots of people can benefit from these factors.

When it comes to things like Big Five I struggle to see where employers and relationship wise its helpful.

I can only see the employer being able to fit someone in the right box, but at times I think this factor is pretty stupid, as jobs are collective effort. Were it that a job is single unit effort it be helpful, but collectively +/- variations among people are going to create a synchrony that cannot be predicted.
Ergo big five gives you a clue what one person is, but put 5 people in the room, and you have no predictable outcome.

Big Five's categories are also monetizable.

• Open or Closed: Would most employers prefer to hire an open-minded employee or a closed-minded employee?
• Agreeable or Disagreeable: Would most employers prefer to hire an agreeable employee or a disagreeable employee?
• Conscienscious or Not conscienscious: Would most employers prefer to hire a conscienscious employee or an employee that is not conscienscious?
• Assertive or Turbulent: Would most employers prefer to hire an assertive employee or a turbulent employee?
• Social or Reserved: Would most employers prefer to hire a social employee or a reserved employee?

It's design indicates its traits are directly translatable to particular jobs.

But you cannot monetize what has already been patented.

So you need to make a new system.

• Open or Closed: Would most employers prefer to hire an open-minded employee or a closed-minded employee?

I don't know. My personal guess is they would prefer to hire a close minded person if they want someone to stick to the routine and not think of something else.
They probably want open minded one where they need them to learn new concepts or apply new solutions.

• Agreeable or Disagreeable: Would most employers prefer to hire an agreeable employee or a disagreeable employee?

I heard that the disagreeable ones are given managerial positions. Pretty sure that is how we built this sociopathic society.

• Conscienscious or Not conscienscious: Would most employers prefer to hire a conscienscious employee or an employee that is not conscienscious?

99 percent of the time I never did my homework.
I still managed to know more than most. I am terrible at keeping a regular grind, but I can do more in one go than some people can do with discipline and diligence.
I am not sure which of the two I am.
If the reward is worth it I am probably going to work at it more than most.
But its going to have to be a fucking reward, not a fucking let down.

Assertive or Turbulent: Would most employers prefer to hire an assertive employee or a turbulent employee?

I am both. I can lose my shit sometimes over nothing, other times, I can hang on the cliff with my pinky finger and read a book. It depends.

Social or Reserved: Would most employers prefer to hire a social employee or a reserved employee?

Depends. How much manipulation does the socializing involve?

 

[Black Rose]

clusters of activity

could mean thousands of possible things

That is saying we cannot determine general things because of specific activity. Clusters of activity are not necessarily random events in the sense we have no neuroscientific knowledge of the brain to begin with. White matter creates dependencies between brain regions. We can start with how introversion and extraversion of functions create influences on white matter tracks such as Judgment functions in the front brain and Perception functions in the back and middle brain.

 

[scorpiomover]

MBTI I trust is trying to answer the question how people fit into jobs.

Meyers Briggs ladies were trying to fit person to the best job.

What people want MBTI to do, is to fit each person to the best job for them.
What employers want MBTI to do, is to fit each job to the best person for them.
Employers pay MBTI people a lot of money. So MBTI is designed to fit each job to the best person for them.

Obviously their ideas were limited by time period these statistics and ideas came from.
But subsequent popular use of MBTI is not short of helpful in all areas of life. Less efficient, yes. Not useless though.

What you want to know about personality types, are questions like "What can I do to talk with SJs? Most things about MBTI seem to describe characterisations of types in terms of popular stereotypes, but don't seem to mention how to communicate effectively with any of them.

For instance Carl Jung had two patients and one was a woman sensor and the other was highly intuitive man, and they struggled with communication.
Today they would probably break up due to this.
Jung just explained to them they communicate differently.

Yes. But today, there would be a Lynx advert to convince young men that they can get a sensor woman to date them anyway, as long as they buy Lynx.

When it comes to things like Big Five I struggle to see where employers and relationship wise its helpful.

I can only see the employer being able to fit someone in the right box,

That's how management consultants and HR would use Big Five.

but at times I think this factor is pretty stupid, as jobs are collective effort. Were it that a job is single unit effort it be helpful, but collectively +/- variations among people are going to create a synchrony that cannot be predicted.
Ergo big five gives you a clue what one person is, but put 5 people in the room, and you have no predictable outcome.

Employees these days hire candidates as individuals. They attempt to get employees to work together, by hiring employees that would "fit in", and making them do teamwork exercises.

• Open or Closed: Would most employers prefer to hire an open-minded employee or a closed-minded employee?

I don't know. My personal guess is they would prefer to hire a close minded person if they want someone to stick to the routine and not think of something else.
They probably want open minded one where they need them to learn new concepts or apply new solutions.

Now you understand how it is used.

• Agreeable or Disagreeable: Would most employers prefer to hire an agreeable employee or a disagreeable employee?

I heard that the disagreeable ones are given managerial positions. Pretty sure that is how we built this sociopathic society.

There is said to be a strong correlation between jobs like the investment market and disagreeableness.

However, several men in my local synagogue happen to work in Investment Banking, and none of them are disagreeable. There are several other men who are disagreeable, some extremely disagreeable, and none of them worked in the investment industry.

 

[sushi]

For instance - What is personality? A lot of people assume we have a clear idea what this is. I am not convinced we do.
The definitions for personality that do exist, are often lacking.

my theory is that personality is mathematical

it is number of forms an indivdual can have, and there is a limit

we are all changlings in my opinion.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What people want MBTI to do, is to fit each person to the best job for them.
What employers want MBTI to do, is to fit each job to the best person for them.
Employers pay MBTI people a lot of money. So MBTI is designed to fit each job to the best person for them.

Yeah, but the jobs that exist today and expectations that are set on people are all over the place. I feel as though the times where MBTI was formulated jobs were made to be longterm and secure. Today young people often shop around and job hop, because it seems no one will guarantee them life long success and secure income.
Not to mention the strategy of shopping around actually pays off, because many jobs are simply crap. For people who are very secure in their ability its easier to choose.

What you want to know about personality types, are questions like "What can I do to talk with SJs? Most things about MBTI seem to describe characterisations of types in terms of popular stereotypes, but don't seem to mention how to communicate effectively with any of them.

Basic rule for me is S types understand facts. SJ types understand how facts work in actions, and if they are logical they understand how facts are in action and logical conclusion.
F types communicate with a lot of empathy and feelz, but their dynamics are often varied depending on how they feel themselves or how they feel about something.
If they are smart they can actually put feelings aside, but often times their feelings override their thinking.
N types need the concept or idea, and then you have to make sure that they understand the idea and concept same as you so it can be confusing if there are two people who see the world differently.
With J types its often about A to B, and P types its often A to where ever it goes, maybe even all the way to X if they can take it there.
I feel as though introverts have a inner machinery that is unexpectedly intricate.
Extroverts seem to be exactly as what they say. Extroverts sees a red rose and says its a red rose. For introverts red rose can be more.

Yes. But today, there would be a Lynx advert to convince young men that they can get a sensor woman to date them anyway, as long as they buy Lynx.

lol yeah, the trouble for me for instance is that I have to be careful that a lot of things I know are considered invalid by sensors, because if you don't speak fact, you just don't know what the hell you are talking about. Which is often difficult because I am sometimes like an Alzheimer patient with facts. They come and go as they please, but invariable when I need them they are there, even if only unconsciously.
I also have to be careful to understand that sensors be it women or men, also come to different conclusions from the same facts.
So working with sensors is hell sometimes.
I think if a women can tolerate my peculiar ways of thinking they would understand me eventually. Trouble is I am good at understanding sensors, but not vice versa.... so I have to do all the lifting my self.

That's how management consultants and HR would use Big Five.

Have you seen moneyball? Its a good movie, because when they are picking the team, they choose the worst players according to what is normally considered right.
That team wins, because all the bad things those people had were actually qualities they compensated for, but were invisible to the recruitment managers. Interestingly I have the same feelings about Big Five. Sometimes you need fucked up people to do the job normal people would not be able to do. Fucked up people have to compensate for lots of things in life that normal functioning individuals don't even bother with.

Employees these days hire candidates as individuals. They attempt to get employees to work together, by hiring employees that would "fit in", and making them do teamwork exercises.

Yes, but I often think the dynamics of team, are often defined by so many variables that cannot be gleaned from interviews. There are some psychologist that say this is possible. Working at McDonalds I realized the right group of people could do 10 times the work with 10 times less effort. So team is very important. Just one person can screw the whole team dynamics. That much I know.

Now you understand how it is used.

Yeah lol.

There is said to be a strong correlation between jobs like the investment market and disagreeableness.

However, several men in my local synagogue happen to work in Investment Banking, and none of them are disagreeable. There are several other men who are disagreeable, some extremely disagreeable, and none of them worked in the investment industry.

Yes. I think disagreeable just show better result because when they are part of team, they disrupt flow, but when they can be commanding they are good at shepherding people to their will. But shepherding people to their will is actually a trade off, as teams that need to be flexible will be constricted.

my theory is that personality is mathematical

it is number of forms an indivdual can have, and there is a limit

we are all changlings in my opinion.

But even an octopus has only one head. Each role in life we play can be seen as tentacle. For instance when you ride your bike with your friends that one tentacle.
When you are at school that is another tentacle. When you are with your friends another. When you are with yourself or friends another and another.
Trouble is what defines how those tentacles move?

 

[Hourglass]

it is number of forms an indivdual can have, and there is a limit

Unless you’re ESFP

 

[Hourglass]

we are all changlings in my opinion.

There is also rate of change to consider

There is also a DSM-5 psychological diagnosis for someone who changes personality very very often

 

[sushi]

we are all changlings in my opinion.

There is also rate of change to consider

There is also a DSM-5 psychological diagnosis for someone who changes personality very very often

form and face is pretty much the same. how many different faces and expression a person can use.
how many forms per day

how many forms per week

how many forms per month?

i usually see in terms of week and month.

my estimate is that most people have around 15-25 on average, unless one has multiple personalities.

 

[Hourglass]

we are all changlings in my opinion.

There is also rate of change to consider

There is also a DSM-5 psychological diagnosis for someone who changes personality very very often

form and face is pretty much the same. how many different faces and expression a person can use.
how many forms per day

how many forms per week

how many forms per month?

i usually see in terms of week and month.

my estimate is that most people have around 15-25 on average, unless one has multiple personalities.

I feel like I have one face, form, and personality. Not to say this is right or wrong but it feels like what I know to be true.

I suppose I will behave differently around say family versus someone at the cash register due to formalities but not due to personality shift. Is change in one’s formality a change in personality?

 

[Hourglass]

The difference between form and formality is interesting.

Formal versus informal, etc.

 

[sushi]

we are all changlings in my opinion.

There is also rate of change to consider

There is also a DSM-5 psychological diagnosis for someone who changes personality very very often

form and face is pretty much the same. how many different faces and expression a person can use.
how many forms per day

how many forms per week

how many forms per month?

i usually see in terms of week and month.

my estimate is that most people have around 15-25 on average, unless one has multiple personalities.

I feel like I have one face, form, and personality. Not to say this is right or wrong but it feels like what I know to be true.

I suppose I will behave differently around say family versus someone at the cash register due to formalities but not due to personality shift. Is change in one’s formality a change in personality?

its just role playing and how comfortable you are in that role

family is home personality or your private personality. your true face.

as for population growing larger and larger, society will become more and more complex, so it becomes harder and harder to read and understand other people

the larger the population, the larger the variations of personality.

in a school you can probably read and understand speed read most of the people in there, because the population community is small (100 to 700 people), but in university and into society, it becomes way harder endeavor unless one is a professional like a criminal profiler.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I would repeat some points I made in this thread.
Psychology is not in realm of science, and in some way not even close to anything hard science does.
Many things in psychology are plain wrong.
Even in hard-science many things are wrong and often corrected.

What really is important to keep in mind, is that something empirical, ergo observed, by some method of observation does not have to reach level of science to be meaningful information.

Lots of things in MBTI are hard to practice in real life, but it gives you some idea how people think and function. Not perfect, but provided one has patience you can actually extrapolate a lot of interesting observation from people.
For one how they decide things, how they talk, how they may negotiate or what their primary focus is on be it intuition or sensory.

Other things that are also important is that information even in realm of science can be entirely subjective, which many people don't realize.
There is a kind of blind spot we think where science is correct it must be correct.

What most of science is, cannot however be encompassed in scientific method alone.

One of the biggest breaks on science of this century is the ruthless idea that human genius stems from scientific method.
It does not. The method of science is merely one tool among many scientist use to achieve the final goal of deriving some understanding of reality that is superior to mere empirical observation.

In and of it self the intellect of person is not based around scientific method.

 

[Black Rose]

The method of science is merely one tool among many scientist use to achieve the final goal of deriving some understanding of reality that is superior to mere empirical observation.

I saw a diagram of how systems thinking works:

1) events
2) patterns
3) structures
4) models

At any level, if an exception arises then we must reformulate that exception top-down.

not all events go together (are correlated)
not all structures contain all correlated events
not all models contain all structures

So if we want to explain something, if we want explanation power we need correct models in the correct context.

A model can be contained in some kind of theory and it can exist subjectively like you said but then what is the scientific method? It is putting all the structures together to see if what one is trying to show to others can be found by others using such structures in the way that was in the method written down is repeatable, that is what the model (theory) is for. It is not just correlations but the context under which we can demonstrate them to others.

A personality theory is based on the method you use to show others it exists which are the structures you placed all the correlated patterns in that become repeatable.

Now then if that theory is complex (MBTI) or simple (Big 5) has to do with the structure and data being placed in them.

When Dario Nardi takes the structure of the data he has collected on personality he is doing a new scientific endeavor. Finding what brains do given all the correlated behavioral patterns. This is a new more complex theory. "These brain patterns result in this behavioral data we have." "We can explain behaviors by what happens in the brain." - It is empirical and explainable and can be replicated.

The scientific method includes theoretical models not just empirical data.

 

[sushi]

-i think there is the physical self vs abstract self

physical self and traits as in described by body and mind and emotion

abstract self and traits or metaphysical is not visible , and cannot be observed

like a determined and stubborness.