What makes MBTI not complete bullshit?

[Tannhauser]

You and I haz previously discussed why your oversimple application of falsifiability to the MBTI is a misapplication, and in case you've forgotten, you can revisit that discussion here.

I wouldn't say that it is refining the argument when you insert a category called "soft science" between science and pseudo-science.

As I think I pointed out there, I don't see what that does to elevate the conjectures of the MBTI theory to any higher epistemological category,

 

[Auburn]

@Tannhauser - Having read the other thread, what I hear you saying is that you absolutely restrict the word "scientific" to theories which have the quality of delineating a type of systemic "underlying cause". And all else isn't science, it's just observation.

I don't know why you don't think raw observation/documentation qualifies as science. Sure you have a favorite theorist from whom you derive your specific definition of science, but you have to understand that you're using a very semantically limited (and, so far as I can tell, not universal) definition of scientific.

The use of the word "science", regularly goes like this:

knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Observation (facts) are the very *core* of science, and are indispensable alongside the discovery of systematic explanations behind these observations and why they happen continually. A scientific theory is a theory that explains a vast array of observations from a more narrow band of general laws -- and does so with consistency and falsifiability. The way I read your comments is:

"I will only accept information which I can know the root cause of."

And what of all the other information that makes up reality? Empiricism has it better here. Empiricism champions observation as "the only true source of knowledge" and that boy who walks around with a notepad taking note of what he sees is discovering truth.

The narrow band of scientific methodology you champion is but one, modern, method of discovering truth. And if you were to put "truth" and "knowledge" above science (they're not the same) then you may realize that your rigidity is suffocating your own breadth of understanding.

There is negation in your statements. There is dismissal of data (data formatted in a way other than how you desire to digest it) as being irrelevant, corrupted or unimportant.

The world is complex and chaotic. Touting a "scientific" perspective as always superior, ironically, places one in a position where we're open to less data and knowledge about the world at large.

The most rational of minds would understand and accept/develop a truth paradigm that gradates from one information channel to another -- accounting for as much information as possible along the way and leaving nothing out or throwing it away.

 

[Shieru]

@reckful -

I apologize for my ambiguous language. I think I could have put what I said much more clearly.. What I meant by it is that Myers and Briggs seem to have taken a very crude approach to Jung's theory of types, by extracting the theoretical archetypes (or schemas) of the functions and making them into literal descriptions of the types by which behavior can be predicted. This is why in MBTI assessments we see the extroverted attitude being equated with enjoyment of physical activity or socialization, rather than the nature of the extroverted thought process which is to prioritize the external object in general. Likewise, the other functions are equated to attitudes and behaviors which aren't necessarily even direct effects of the functions themselves.

I doubt Jung would have approved of the MBTI. I've spent quite a bit of time studying the whole of analytical psychology and applying it in self-therapy, and have developed a profound appreciation for Jung's perspectives. Although I certainly don't claim to be an expert in his theories, from what I've come to perceive, he very much opposed the use of absolutes to describe any aspect of human psychology. The philosophy he describes is beautiful, I think. He avoided establishing categorical instruments because he understood the particularity of personality. He honored the nuance of reality, and put truth before convenience in his approach.

I haven't read all of Psychological Types, which may mean I'm losing out on some information that would change my perspective. But from what I have read, it seems to me that Jung wrote it in the context of his overall philosophy. The title of Chapter 10 is General Description of the Types, not Description of Specific Behaviors of the Types. I think there is good reason for this, as Jung was a man who was very intentional with his words. His type descriptions deal with the inevitable psychology which results from the nature of the primary function as he came to identify it. If he makes a statement about behavior, it is as a direct result of the psychology explained and it is described as a probable outcome.

It's also very much worth noting that that letter you (incompletely) quoted is from 1915, and that Psychological Types was published in 1921, and that Jung acknowledged in the Introduction that his type concepts had changed in the years between — specifically noting, for example, that he had mistakenly "identified the thinking type with the introvert and the feeling type with the extravert," a mistake that is very clearly on display in portions of that 1915 letter that you didn't quote.

I actually don't know if this is relevant. It is my practice not to exclude a piece of information just because it happens to be delivered in close proximity to other information which is incorrect. I didn't quote the portions of his letter which refer to his incorrect identifications, I quoted what I see to be relevant to his overall perspective. He writes some very similar things about the inadequacy of his direct quantification of function attitudes to describe actual personalities in Psychological Types:

"Generally speaking, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the maintenance of the psychic equilibrium. A normal extroverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual invariably behaves in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological processes may be observed that involve the mechanism of introversion. We call a mode of behavior extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates."

~ Psychological Types pg. 340

Is there a reason you didn't identify the year of that letter for the benefit of your readers?

It didn't really seem all that relevant to me, to be honest. Unlike you, I don't necessarily approach things from a historian's perspective, but more from a direction of uncovering underlying principles/axioms. I look at what Jung has written over the years and consolidate it all into a concept of his overall viewpoints. As such, the quote I provided is just one of many from him I've seen where he describes the functions as theoretical concepts, but it's a nice, clear example, and so seemed a good choice to demonstrate my point. I must say your knowledge of particulars as they stand in chronological order is rather impressive to me. It seems very related to the process of Si.

 

[Architect]

I don't mean to be rude (well, maybe a little bit),

Not at all, I probably deserve it

Because, the fact that you are posing that question while simultaneously claiming MBTI is scientific, is a complete self-contradiction.

I don't think so. Remember I approach this from having been an experimental physicist. We're all cowboys according to the mathematicians, and the philosophers probably too. Given my physics inspired definition of a theory MBTI is one. Which means you can shoot holes in it. Recall Newtons theory of gravitation - you can easily get that to break down, but it doesn't mean its wrong, just incomplete. Our two greatest theories - GR and QM are wrong in some way - they have to be because they disagree. But left to themselves we see nothing but a working theory.

From a mathematical or philosophical standpoint MBTI is thin indeed I'm sure, but give it a break! It's a psychological theory, what do you expect? Physics theories have to work in the real world, so we have to give them some rope. The same applies to psych theories.

 

[Tannhauser]

@Auburn

I think you have misunderstood my view. I have not claimed that anything scientific needs to explain the underlying cause of things. What I am saying is that the part of MBTI that attempts to do so is unscientific.

And again, when I say "scientific", I use it in the sense of the demarcation problem. There, the question of what science is, is not just some attempt at creating a club for people who can call themselves scientists, but it is actually figuring out what the sources of knowledge are. For example why Astrology is not a source of knowledge while General Relativity is.

Also, I don't dismiss data by any means. However, you need these rigorous structures of meta-reasoning to separate scientific empiricism from naive empiricism. Without them, you have no good argument for why this is a erroneous statement:

"I have lived for 9450 days and not died even once. I can therefore with a high degree of certainty say that I am immortal"

 

[Auburn]

Also, I don't dismiss data by any means. However, you need these rigorous structures of meta-reasoning to separate scientific empiricism from naive empiricism. Without them, you have no good argument for why this is a erroneous statement:

"I have lived for 9450 days and not died even once. I can therefore with a high degree of certainty say that I am immortal"

Or I can say:

"I have lived to see that few people live up to 90 years, and none lived more than 95. I can therefore, with a high degree of certainty, say that I will not live to be 100."​

What makes the difference between these two?

More data. Context. Breadth.

What falsifies or verifies a statement isn't just logic, but reality and information/observation in general. The dangers you're talking about here are of applying logic improperly when it comes to induction. And what you appear to favor is the certainty of deduction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wrCpLJ1XAw

But both deduction and induction can be done correctly or incorrectly. This isn't a matter of "science", it's a matter of good/bad logic. And we don't need to depreciate information provided by inductive reasoning just because we favor deduction most, or because it can sometimes be flawed and we want to minimize possible system failure by avoiding that logical strategy.

We end up being able to know far less if we just rely on deduction. This is what I mean by limiting what you can feel that you know. Induction and Abduction are valid ways of knowledge accumulation too.

edit: I think we need a thread split... ^^; ... <.<

 

[QuickTwist]

OK, so here is what I think (uneducated as it is).

In dealing with information and in judging it based on its merits on whether it is reliable, it must be understood that this comes from an observational capability. The reason for this is that if you understand things solely based on intuition alone (what is that exactly?) You will never know how accurate or inaccurate you are in your analysis. Since with intuition there is no regulatory system that keeps things in place, there is no telling where it is and where it is going to go. With a stem based system, based on observation and then recorded, we see that clear trends can be found. This is the very essential difference between MBTI and Jungian theory. So while Jung is ambitious in both his understanding and demonstration of his theory, it gives us little to work with tangibly. MBTI while a novel idea, clearly does not hold up to par of intellectual scrutiny. Some examples of this include, 1) no reason is given for why there has to be exactly 16 types of people and 2) even if there were 16 types of people (which is unprovable) it leaves little in the way of understanding people on an intuitive level because it judges them based on black and white criteria. Now we get to the crux of my argument. Because MBTI, which is a standard based on observation, is based on information taken from an intuitive source, the information gathered is largely negated due to the infringement of ambiguity which is necessary as a compromise. For that reason, it would be better to do it the opposite way around. Rather than observing from an intuitive source, it should be intuiting from an observable source, which is exactly what clinical psychology tries to accomplish.

So in terms of relevance of what is actually reliable, I would say the list goes something like this:

MMPI
Global 5
MBTI
Enneagram
Astrology

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The J/P dichotomy is useful because it encodes fundamental differences between Ji and Je, Pi and Pe.

This is only half true because MBTI's split of J/P lumps Ji and Pe together, and Pi with Je. You lose what makes Ji, Pe, Pi, or Je, special in itself and how they come together to form TiNe, or SeFi, or FeSi, or NiTe. As for the four letter code, sure in practice it does tell us something but it's backwards and inconvenient than doing it how Jung might have done it, which is what I have been saying and Kuu too, which I was surprised to see.

An IxxP may have a judging function as their dominant but overall they're still much more likely to be: flexible, adaptive, open to new ideas, procrastinators, uncomfortable with plans, have a loose social style, not push particular agendas, etc. Because Ji and Je are quite different in style, as are Pi and Pe - JiPe is adaptive and flexible in orientation, JePi is rigid and structured. (Sure, both types would have qualities of the opposite as well - because we're not just 2 functions.) Ji judges in a more fluid, holistic, intuitive manner that lends to certain behaviours; Je judges in a linear, point-based manner that produces different behaviour.

Huge disagreement here. Not that your descriptions are completely inaccurate, but you don't realize that as a result of the way J/P is presented, you have cultivated a one-sided and biased view of what judging means and what perception means. It then reinforces the memes of "flexible and adaptable" vs "rigid and structured" without even truly taking an closer look at how the functions of these types would contribute to those traits.

As an aside MBTI is gravely behavioral and superficial compared to Socionics and the reason is simply because Socionics allows the inner perceptual life of Pi doms and inner judging life of Ji doms to be considered. It's much more holistic.

This is information that wouldn't be obvious to noobs at all with a 3 letter code where no information is given about the great differences between Je and Ji, Pe and Pi. Essentially, the J/P dichotomy communicates that Je/Pi and Ji/Pe exist in 2 markedly different behavioural categories, and in fact so distinctively that it constitutes an axis of it own.
INT
INF
IST
ISF
EFN
ETN
EFS
ETS
doesn't encode this at a glance.

Whereas if you add just one more letter:
INTP
INFP
ISTP
ISFP
ENTP
ENFP
ESTP
ESFP

Straightaway you see that these 8 types have something significant in common.

J/P tells you something about the alchemy of functions working in concert. It's not meant to be just a tool used to reverse engineer the dom's attitude - thinking of it like that makes the priority given to the extroverted function seem suspect, whereas the priority is simply because that's where the behaviour is observable and obvious to *everyone*. We can't see what's going on in someone's head, so knowing the dom attitude doesn't tell us anything more about the person unless we know function theory. But eventually someone would've noticed that half the 3-letter types had a cluster of behaviours in common and come up with something to represent it anyway.

There are other 'alchemical' groupings, but I think they're less obvious.

Kuu has already spoke on it but you can indeed encode functions in a three letter format that also indicates the similarities of types. It's not that J/P is literally useless in practice but that the way it was done broke symmetry with its Jungian origins and is therefore less convenient and facilitates a skewed view of the types.

 

[Tannhauser]

Or I can say:

"I have lived to see that few people live up to 90 years, and none lived more than 95. I can therefore, with a high degree of certainty, say that I will not live to be 100."​

What makes the difference between these two?

More data. Context. Breadth.

What falsifies or verifies a statement isn't just logic, but reality and information/observation in general. The dangers you're talking about here are of applying logic improperly when it comes to induction. And what you appear to favor is the certainty of deduction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wrCpLJ1XAw

But both deduction and induction can be done correctly or incorrectly. This isn't a matter of "science", it's a matter of good/bad logic. And we don't need to depreciate information provided by inductive reasoning just because we favor deduction most, or because it can sometimes be flawed and we want to minimize possible system failure by avoiding that logical strategy.

We end up being able to know far less if we just rely on deduction. This is what I mean by limiting what you can feel that you know. Induction and Abduction are valid ways of knowledge accumulation too.

edit: I think we need a thread split... ^^; ... <.<

I certainly don't claim that induction is useless. That's why I could agree with statements like: if you are an INTP, you will tend to do this and that. The statement can be true, because an INTP is simply defined by his behavioral patterns and how he answers an MBTI questionnaire.

But if you are to claim that the underlying theory of the MBTI is correct, that is a completely different scenario. Here you need a criterion for discriminating between useless stuff and stuff that actually adds to your knowledge of the world. Here, a logical fact applies: you can never use data to prove a theory, only to disprove it (i.e. the problem of induction). As Karl Popper figured out, that serves as a solution to the demarcation problem: It turns out that useless stuff is unfalsifiable.

This is not about applying strict standards btw, it's just distinguishing between things that add to your understanding and on the other hand - narratives designed to fool you.

 

[E404]

I certainly don't claim that induction is useless. That's why I could agree with statements like: if you are an INTP, you will tend to do this and that. The statement can be true, because an INTP is simply defined by his behavioral patterns and how he answers an MBTI questionnaire.

I can't add much to this thread yet, but I think "tend to do" is key here... It's a good theory. Outcomes are predictable, but no guarantee of accuracy.

 

[Tannhauser]

I can't add much to this thread yet, but I think "tend to do" is key here... It's a good theory. Outcomes are predictable, but no guarantee of accuracy.

yes, but that's the important part – people think there is a connection between all the Jungian theory and the statistical phenomena, not realizing that the statistical phenomena would exist regardless of all the theory.

 

[Architect]

I certainly don't claim that induction is useless. That's why I could agree with statements like: if you are an INTP, you will tend to do this and that. The statement can be true, because an INTP is simply defined by his behavioral patterns and how he answers an MBTI questionnaire.

We agree

But if you are to claim that the underlying theory of the MBTI is correct, that is a completely different scenario.

We disagree. Any physicist will point out that any real world theory (i.e. not a purely mathematical theory) is defined to be correct if it is experimentally verified. Well then what if you have a different theory that also explains the experimental data? Then you use criteria of elegance - is it the minimal theory, is it clean, is it appealing, etc.

yes, but that's the important part – people think there is a connection between all the Jungian theory and the statistical phenomena, not realizing that the statistical phenomena would exist regardless of all the theory.

Yes, so? That's obvious enough, theories are just our constructs to understand and predict the world. They're models, something you are intimately familiar with. You'll have to get into these points, you didn't explain yourself and these are the crux. Take this thesis

MBTI is a framework that adequately describes typical behavior groups for people*. The framework is a theory because it is predicative and elegant**

*For example (in MBTI speak), you wouldn't typically find an INTP type who loves going to obligatory family events.

**Many examples of prediction, i.e. "a person with a Fe inferior would typically ..."

 

[E404]

*For example (in MBTI speak), you wouldn't typically find an INTP type who loves going to obligatory family events."

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It's always a sign we're into some juicy stuff when reckful shows up with his "MBTI (dichotomies) is verified science, read all about it" text can.

Now I'll start with saying that there are likely going to be things we simply hold on to differing premises on, and it's best simply to recognise those and leave them be. Pointless arguments usually result from people failing to recognise that they're starting from incompatible premises. I'm looking at things with a view to having a productive exchange.

So let's see.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
I wasn't referring to Socionics but the dichotomies in themselves, it holds true irrespective of the particular theory. If you are confused please point out where you got the impression I was speaking about Socionics.

Your statement that J/P (j/p for Socionics) is redundant is far from true in an absolute sense for either system. It's in no way true for MBTI and it's true only in a sense for Socionics. The sense in which it's true for Socionics is of course that there is an alternative three-letter naming system.

You misunderstood what I meant then, what you're saying here is a slightly different topic. In that paragraph my primary assertion was the J/P dichotomy is NOT an independent dichotomy -- the lack of independence here refers to J or P calling upon more than one aspect of functions, therefore it can't be used as a single separate dimension in statistics. If we are measuring the traits of a population looking for Pness we're already begging the question of what Pness is by saying only Pe+Ji types can have Pness. Instead Pness should be a quality that all types can have, except some types have more Pness than others, but how can Je+Pi types have any Pness if you already said P=Pe? This is the error of MBTI that is true regardless of the system you adhere to.

Instead, Pness should be a quality of all types and a sliding scale in the population. TiNe's pness is caused by extraverted perception which is perhaps more readily apparent than NiTe's pness which is caused by introverted perception. But the effect that their perception functions have on their respective inner lives and psychologies(and not just how others see them) could be greater or less than the other and would manifest in different ways. This would already be the case if we accept that Pness is a quality of all perceiving functions and not only those types with extraverted perception.

Socionics j/p indicates dominant rationality/irrationality, a quality at the heart of the system. MBTI J/P indicates rationality/irrationality of the primary extraverted function. Another way to look at it is introversion/extroversion of the primary rational function. This is also a quality at the heart of the system.

It seems to me that each construct is clear and useful enough to serve its purpose within the confines of its respective system.
In fact, this difference embodies the legitimate difference in original premises between the two systems. It's the self-evident cause of the J/P switch in introverts.

The problem is not that J/P is unable to separate types, it's that judging and perceiving are misunderstood function qualities in MBTI. Which is why the phenomenon of J/P flipping exists.

You'll note from the construct that J/P in MBTI tells you nothing about the dominant function (or any other function). It only tells you other things beyond the definition above after you already know certain things. This is no different then from F/T or E/I or S/N.

Yes it does not say about the dominant function but that is beside the point. I/E is an attitude that directs the flow of the 4 basic functions. The 4 basic functions therefore can exist under two states: introverted or extraverted which gives us a total of 8 functions. Se Si Ni Ne Fi Fe Ti Te. Now there is one more quality that divides these 8 functions, but nothing else is needed to construct them. The dividing quality is that half these functions are perception and half are judgment. It would make sense then to split these functions along those qualities, but instead in MBTI we split them along a pre-existing type configuration, which is whatever the types' extraverted function is. Therefore MBTI J/P is a quality of types not functions. Socionics j/p is a quality of both functions and types.

Do you now see how it is not similar to the other dichotomies?

The statement you made was basically a definition of the Socionics three-letter naming system. You spelled out how one could be an LII. My response brought that to your (and everyone else's) attention.

This was another misunderstanding on your part. Again in my first paragraph here, I wasn't building a type using three dichotomies in the style of Socionics. I was explaining how the other 3 dichotomies behave differently than J/P under MBTI.

eyeseecold
If the first extraverted function is perceiving then we can conclude certain functions that are present in that configuration: Ne / Se and Ti / Fi, because if your extraverted function is perceiving then it is either Ne or Se, and Ti or Fi will follow. Extending this to judgment as well then we can depict what J/P is really a dichotomy of:

MBTI P: Ne/Se, Ti/Fi
MBTI J: Ni/Si, Te/Fe

To reiterate, Ti/Fi are logically deduced just by knowing if Ne or Se is present. Therefore a property of MBTI Perception is Ti/Fi judgment

Yes, just as it is in Socionics. You can't have Pe without Ji bundled with it.

Except you can! It's called Extraverted Perception, and Ji is Introverted Judgement. Why is Introverted Judgment bundled as a trait of being a Perceiving type? This is clearly contradictory logic.

Obviously you need both to build a type. But that's not the point of contention.

You take an Introverted Judging type in Socionics and it will be Ti dom or Fi dom, the only thing perceiving about them is that they have Extraverted Perception for the auxiliary function.

How so?


Not a property of, but indivisible from. This is a basic tenet of Jung's theory. Neither MBTI nor Socionics has deviated from that. I'm confused by this line of argument.


Nothing is reclassified. MBTI J/P informs us of a property of the first rational function (or alternatively the first irrational function, or alternatively the first extroverted function, or alternatively the first introverted function). These are merely various lenses. If anything it lends a certain elegance and dexterity to the conception. Socionics j/p informs us of a property of the dominant function. Different constructs, same essence.


It's not different to me. The difference in naming constructs is just that. It doesn't meaningfully alter the taxonomy of types.



Neither. Both are perfectly consistent on their own terms.



Neither does.



I hope my responses above have rendered it unnecessary to respond to this.

I'm sorry but if you fail to see the inconsistency in MBTI here then there's no way you could grasp how this affects the types in practice when people start to write profile descriptions about types based on how they individually understand the dichotomies. Or when they try to explain function dynamics according to the dichotomies.

You can't sit there and tell me the ignorance of the Rationality/Irrationality dichotomy or that the re-definition/refocusing of what Perception and Judgment are has no impact on how people understand functions. It's like saying you have Water types and Fire types, and just because a pond stream(Ni, Si dom) has water it has to be treated the same as a waterfall(Ni, Si are Js despite T/F being secondary); or that an ignited match is no different than a brush fire.

The validity of the types is at risk regardless of whether you prefer MBTI or Socionics. There is no error, only the constructs you find more useful or meaningful.
Nothing has been substantiated in either system. What has been substantiated is social E/I, which is correlated with but by no means the same as cognitive E/I.

Yes, though you're specifically talking Socionics again. Absolute judgement or perception is not part of MBTI. The appropriate element to replace the third in your list is "it is an introverted judging function and not introverted perceiving".

We already know since we've said we are Ti. The question is redundant.

A matter purely for Socionics.

Why is absolute judgment or perception not part of MBTI? Why should it count for nothing? Don't you think we're throwing away and ignoring useful information by doing that?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The MBTI code with the addition of J/P for some reason wants to emphasize which function is extraverted. Why is that more important than which function is introverted? It's just arbitrary.

Why does the external world matter more? It might as well be the introverted function and you would get:

"INTP" = Ni Te = INTJ
"INTJ" = Ti Ne = INTP
"ENTP" = Te Ni = ENTJ
...

Why not? It's equally arbitrary.

Yes, exactly. It's arbitrary. If there were no such thing as an auxiliary function you couldn't even determine J/P, another proof that doing it this way is broken.

But let's return to the present writing system.

If you're extraverted, your dominant is extraverted, if you're introverted, it's the auxiliary. Since in the code the position of the S/N and T/F are fixed (arbitrarily it seems), you have no way of quickly knowing which is dominant but by adding J/P and flipping things around in your mind, which makes reading the code confusing for noobs and annoying for all.

Jung-derived types all assume a hierarchy, yet the MBTI 4-letter code neglects this and complicates the interpretation. Why not just emphasize which is dominant instead of fixing the positions of the middle two letters? 3 letters (and position-direction) are enough to encode the information:

INTP = ITN = Ti Ne
INTJ = INT = Ni Te
ENTP = ENT = Ne Ti
ENTJ = ETN = Te Ni
INFP = IFN = Fi Ne
ISFJ = ISF = Si Fe
...

This way you can immediately tell which is dominant, auxiliary, and their directions. It's so much easier. If you want to know if the extroverted function is J or P, it's easy to know from there... writing J/P is redundant.

The J/P dichotomy seems to confuse people too much and perpetuate misunderstandings of slobs vs OCDs, as if an individual was either J or P, rather than dominant extroverted J and auxiliary introverted P...

>The J/P dichotomy seems to confuse people too much and perpetuate misunderstandings of slobs vs OCDs.

Indeed. This later post you made is also great:

If you take the Jung-dogmatic position that the Aux function is the same and not the opposite direction of the Dom, you can still write it ITN = TiNi.

To dismiss this as semantics or a subjective preference is to miss the impact this has on the real world phenomena of types and how we apply our mbti framework to understand it. If the framework is broken or complicated, our understanding will be so as well.

@Auburn I do agree on your Conflicting Paradigms and the two-system hybrid. I believe you researched Socionics a bit so you know what the Static vs Dynamic dichotomy is then? This information is completely lost and unavailable to mbti because we don't see Je+Pi and Ji+Pe as something in their own but only as a convoluted way to determine the last letter. Interestingly Adymus/Pod'Lair did write about that dichotomy for our MBTI pleasure under the name of Adaptive and Directive.

 

[Tannhauser]

We disagree. Any physicist will point out that any real world theory (i.e. not a purely mathematical theory) is defined to be correct if it is experimentally verified. Well then what if you have a different theory that also explains the experimental data? Then you use criteria of elegance - is it the minimal theory, is it clean, is it appealing, etc.

I hope not all physicists are operating under that assumption. I basically follow Popper's falsificationism again, but a theory is not "correct" if it is experimentally verified. It is corroborated when you try to falsify the theory but it passes the test. So when you have two competing theories, they should both include criteria for falsification so that the one which remains unfalsified is chosen as the best theory (and again, this is impossible with MBTI since it has no criteria of falsification).

Yes, so? That's obvious enough, theories are just our constructs to understand and predict the world. They're models, something you are intimately familiar with. You'll have to get into these points, you didn't explain yourself and these are the crux. Take this thesis

MBTI is a framework that adequately describes typical behavior groups for people*. The framework is a theory because it is predicative and elegant**

*For example (in MBTI speak), you wouldn't typically find an INTP type who loves going to obligatory family events.

**Many examples of prediction, i.e. "a person with a Fe inferior would typically ..."

It definitely seems that when you talk about scientific theories, you actually mean models. Models are what you use when you want to capture some specific statistical pattern that you hope will repeat itself in the future. They don't provide scientific theories about the underlying causes. This has been my whole point all along – the model aspect of MBTI is perfectly fine. You divide people into groups and assume you can project their defining traits into the future.

If I decided to statistically test whether people with blonde hair have slightly different personality than people with dark hair, and I find out with some degree of statistical significance that this is true, I have a model which I can use to make some prediction and maybe also explain certain events in the past. Do I have a scientific theory for the underlying causes of this phenomenon? No.

 

[Architect]

I hope not all physicists are operating under that assumption.

Pretty much. Physicists are too busy trying to get work done to deal with the finer points of philosophy.

Look, your point below about 'model' versus 'theory' is fine too, if you want to call GR, QM, QCD and the rest 'models' go ahead, but you'll be in a camp of one. The scientific community universally calls GR/QM/etc theories - and the term 'model' is used for solutions to those, usually as numerical approximations. I'm just describing how the rest of the world uses its nomenclature. And speaking of which ...

And, I get your hair-splitting - I really do. But I got the intellectual shit beat out of me working on a phys phd, so I can't really get much energy behind it. There's too much undiscovered real work to do.

 

[scorpiomover]

yes, but that's the important part – people think there is a connection between all the Jungian theory and the statistical phenomena, not realizing that the statistical phenomena would exist regardless of all the theory.

Calculus is all about finding patterns in the data, like statistical phenomena. The thing that most teachers don't mention about calculus, is that it has to produce the same result no matter what way you slice up the data, or you'll get results that appear to be certain, but aren't there if you look at the data from another angle.

 

[Tannhauser]

Pretty much. Physicists are too busy trying to get work done to deal with the finer points of philosophy.

Look, your point below about 'model' versus 'theory' is fine too, if you want to call GR, QM, QCD and the rest 'models' go ahead, but you'll be in a camp of one. The scientific community universally calls GR/QM/etc theories - and the term 'model' is used for solutions to those, usually as numerical approximations. I'm just describing how the rest of the world uses its nomenclature. And speaking of which ...

And, I get your hair-splitting - I really do. But I got the intellectual shit beat out of me working on a phys phd, so I can't really get much energy behind it. There's too much undiscovered real work to do.

I used GR as an example of a scientific theory earlier to contrast between a scientific theory and MBTI, so the point is exactly that I don't want to call it a model (in the statistical-modeling sense).

It's not about hair splitting (as I also mentioned earlier). It's about separating useless, wishy-washy Astrology-style nonsense from theories that contribute to our understanding of things. I find it very strange that physicists supposedly don't care about that, as I find myself thinking about these things on a regular basis even as a predominantly statistical modeler.

Why would anyone engage in this sort of "hair-splitting"? Well, some of us don't want to be fooled by bogus narratives and indulge in various cognitive biases.

 

[Architect]

I used GR as an example of a scientific theory earlier to contrast between a scientific theory and MBTI,

Is it in a different thread? I don't see it here, please reprint.

It's not about hair splitting (as I also mentioned earlier). It's about separating useless, wishy-washy Astrology-style nonsense from theories that contribute to our understanding of things. I find it very strange that physicists supposedly don't care about that, as I find myself thinking about these things on a regular basis even as a predominantly statistical modeler.

It's all about predicative. Does your theory predict the physical world? If it does, and is experimentally verified in some domain, and is elegant than the scientific community (e.g. not just physicists) are satisfied.

Take GR, AFAIK it was provisionally accepted on publication, well here

At its introduction in 1915, the general theory of relativity did not have a solid empirical foundation. It was known that it correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury and on philosophical grounds it was considered satisfying that it was able to unify Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity.

it wasn't until the South American eclipse that it got some real verification

That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

And another prediction - that of gravitational waves, wasn't verified until last year! But nobody I knew doubted GR as being a good theory.

Similarly, MBTI is satisfying on philosophical grounds (to me and others at least), has verification in the data (go buy a copy of The MBTI manual to see it). And it's falsifiable; go find me an INTP who is identified as such (via a professional typing say), has all the hallmarks, yet loves going to family events and is the gregarious life of the party. And if you do find one or two out of the millions of INTP's on the earth, that's still OK, as there are the rare anomalies (but not here I bet). Only QCD gets to some 15 sig figs, 5 or 6 is usually good enough.

 

[QuickTwist]

Similarly, MBTI is satisfying on philosophical grounds (to me and others at least), has verification in the data (go buy a copy of The MBTI manual to see it). And it's falsifiable; go find me an INTP who is identified as such (via a professional typing say), has all the hallmarks, yet loves going to family events and is the gregarious life of the party. And if you do find one or two out of the millions of INTP's on the earth, that's still OK, as there are the rare anomalies (but not here I bet). Only QCD gets to some 15 sig figs, 5 or 6 is usually good enough.

I have a question to ask you. Anyone who has "all the hallmarks" of a specific trait, will pretty much confirm them as that don't you think?

If a patient who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and has "all the hallmarks" of a schizophrenic, no one in their right mind would disagree with the diagnosis.

 

[Architect]

I have a question to ask you. Anyone who has "all the hallmarks" of a specific trait, will pretty much confirm them as that don't you think

In psychology that is the standard. For example Aspergers - shrinks have a checklist they go through to decide whether a child fits. One of the criteria is do they look people in the eye, for example (aspies don't engage directly). It's a spectrum (or thought to be), so they use personal heuristics and this criteria to decide.

Medical diagnosis is the same. Ehlers Danlos is a spectrum too - and the best one in the world goes through her own list and then makes a personal heuristic determination of whether the child fits or not.

No surprise - artificial neural nets work the same.

If a patient who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and has "all the hallmarks" of a schizophrenic, no one in their right mind would disagree with the diagnosis.

Yes obviously. And how was the diagnosis made? From the same criteria basically, so it's a self referential point.

 

[QuickTwist]

In psychology that is the standard. For example Aspergers - shrinks have a checklist they go through to decide whether a child fits. One of the criteria is do they look people in the eye, for example (aspies don't engage directly). It's a spectrum (or thought to be), so they use personal heuristics and this criteria to decide.

Medical diagnosis is the same. Ehlers Danlos is a spectrum too - and the best one in the world goes through her own list and then makes a personal heuristic determination of whether the child fits or not.

No surprise - artificial neural nets work the same.

Yes obviously. And how was the diagnosis made? From the same criteria basically, so it's a self referential point.

OK, so follow up question (I apologize).

It appeared earlier (or I got the impression of) that you do not think much of clinical psychology, and here you are saying that it is reasonable that clinical psychology have their own diagnosis. Can you help me clarify where exactly you stand on clinical psychology and possibly the correlation from that to MBTI measurements?

What I left out of my first post addressed to you here is that I have been Typed by a licensed psychologist under a licenced test that says I am INTP but as I recall you had me as some type of sensor dominant type. (true enough, I can't stand family get togethers and have never in my life been considered the life of the party. Just confused what these Hallmarks are that you were talking about.)

 

[cheese]

This is only half true because MBTI's split of J/P lumps Ji and Pe together, and Pi with Je. You lose what makes Ji, Pe, Pi, or Je, special in itself and how they come together to form TiNe, or SeFi, or FeSi, or NiTe. As for the four letter code, sure in practice it does tell us something but it's backwards and inconvenient than doing it how Jung might have done it, which is what I have been saying and Kuu too, which I was surprised to see.

I agree you lose what makes each function unique. I actually said there are different 'alchemical' groupings that aren't represented in the MBTI (or I meant to anyway - might not have been clear). Ji is of course different to Pe, etc etc. IPs share something in common that they don't with all Ps, share something in common with EJs that they don't with EPs, and so on. I find the typical MBTI understanding sorely lacking in depth, detail and realism.

Huge disagreement here. Not that your descriptions are completely inaccurate, but you don't realize that as a result of the way J/P is presented, you have cultivated a one-sided and biased view of what judging means and what perception means. It then reinforces the memes of "flexible and adaptable" vs "rigid and structured" without even truly taking an closer look at how the functions of these types would contribute to those traits.

Don't know what your assessment of my view is based on. I'm not really an MBTI proponent; I prefer function theory and I've spent a lot of time in that area. If you're basing it off that one post, let me restate in clearer terms that I consider the 4 letter system more useful *for newbs*, as it gives them some sort of indication as to how the functions interact to produce certain groupings ("P" being one of them) - something they wouldn't otherwise discover without a lot more (unlikely) investment of time and effort.

Of course, a little amount of information tends to be dangerous so yeah they often end up misled. I know one Ne dom who an outsider would type as some sort of J, simply because he's developed so much and has broken with the stereotypical profile. And I've known plenty of INTPs who have all sorts of certainty and judgment to lay at your door, and who prefer plans to uncertainty for various reasons. But I'm not overly fussed because I don't take the MBTI too seriously. It's fun, they enjoy it and P gives legitimacy to people who struggle committing to decisions and plans. Functions I take more seriously, but they have less empirical support iirc.

As an aside MBTI is gravely behavioral and superficial compared to Socionics and the reason is simply because Socionics allows the inner perceptual life of Pi doms and inner judging life of Ji doms to be considered. It's much more holistic.

No disagreement there. Obviously the internal life is relevant too. The external life is more relevant in MBTI because it's primarily measuring behaviour iirc.

Kuu has already spoke on it but you can indeed encode functions in a three letter format that also indicates the similarities of types. It's not that J/P is literally useless in practice but that the way it was done broke symmetry with its Jungian origins and is therefore less convenient and facilitates a skewed view of the types.

Really? I read Kuu's post and didn't see anything that made large groupings obvious at a glance. Individual groupings like introversion, Ni dom, Te dom - yeah, they're represented, but P/J covers 2 functions in concert.

Also, the bottom line for me is that I don't really care whether MBTI uses P/J or not, because function theory in depth is more interesting. But I know that for people who won't bother looking into it more, P/J adds a bit more fun and a bit more information - it's not a completely meaningless dimension, which is the only thing I took issue with. But if I meet anyone who's interested in more, that's usually one of the first things I tear down because it gets in the way of depth. Depth isn't required for cursory glances though - breadth is.

--------

I actually agree with Auburn that MBTI should be considered a separate system to function theory and have thought so for years. MBTI *is* measuring something, but despite overlap is not exactly the same thing as function theory. It's measuring behaviour and output, not the processes that lead to it. So you'll get some SiTes who look like INTPs, and some NeTis who look like ISTJs (at least for a while in their lives), blahblah. There are plenty of profiles that try to combine the two, which for some people will be a spot-on match (because it turns out they *are* an INTP *and* a TiNe) but for others won't quite be right.

But it's still somewhat useful, in my experience. For instance, within MBTI I've pretty clearly moved to an NF (test results, relate far more to NF profiles, relate more to NFs, feel alienated by NTs, work/life/relationship issues described in NF profiles perfectly fit my own life, others type me as NF now including those who previously saw me as classic INTP, etc), even though I know my cognitive setup is still Ti+Ne. My instincts are still driven by the psychic tension between Ti-Fe and Ne-Si. They're two different things.

 

[Tannhauser]

Is it in a different thread? I don't see it here, please reprint.


It's all about predicative. Does your theory predict the physical world? If it does, and is experimentally verified in some domain, and is elegant than the scientific community (e.g. not just physicists) are satisfied.

Take GR, AFAIK it was provisionally accepted on publication, well here

it wasn't until the South American eclipse that it got some real verification

And another prediction - that of gravitational waves, wasn't verified until last year! But nobody I knew doubted GR as being a good theory.

It's amusing that you bring up that exact example, because this is what I wrote in this thread:

Relativity made predictions which were almost absurd given what our experience told us. For example, it predicted the bending of light in gravitational fields, which was very counter-intuitive considering light does not have mass. This turned out to be a correct prediction and thus corroborated the theory. In other words, the theory didn't try to fit observed facts into it but instead deduced them, and even deduced facts which were not even imaginable before the theory. Now, MBTI differs in a fundamental way: it only recycles what we already observe and categorises that into concepts. It has never produced a prediction which was not already apparent.

So that is the whole point. The only reason GR was accepted as a theory to begin with was that it was falsifiable – there were definite experiments one could do which beyond any doubt would falsify the whole thing. And the reason it turns out to be a very good theory, is that it predicted stuff a-priori, things that no one could even imagine at the outset. If the theory only "predicts" things that are already apparent, it doesn't add anything.

Similarly, MBTI is satisfying on philosophical grounds (to me and others at least), has verification in the data (go buy a copy of The MBTI manual to see it). And it's falsifiable; go find me an INTP who is identified as such (via a professional typing say), has all the hallmarks, yet loves going to family events and is the gregarious life of the party. And if you do find one or two out of the millions of INTP's on the earth, that's still OK, as there are the rare anomalies (but not here I bet). Only QCD gets to some 15 sig figs, 5 or 6 is usually good enough.

But how would you know that he is INTP in the first place? Well, it would probably be, among other things, that he doesn't like going to parties that much. So it works insofar as it doesn't generate any new information, and thus, by virtue of being a circular system, it cannot be falsified.

 

[Architect]

But how would you know that he is INTP in the first place? Well, it would probably be, among other things, that he doesn't like going to parties that much. So it works insofar as it doesn't generate any new information, and thus, by virtue of being a circular system, it cannot be falsified.

You twisted my example above in an attempt to prove your point. I say you can put all the INTP's you find in the world, without asking if they like parties, and then test the population to see how many like parties. You can also test ...

• Of the ones who had S parents, were they rebellious?
• Of the ones who had N parents, were they more self accepting?
• How much of the population went into STEM? How many went into the humanities? The theory would predict more would have gone into technical fields, or the humanities from a technical standpoint
• ...

Get it? You can test for a million different ideas, none of which are used as predictors, because they're not good test predictor questions. Either because they don't apply to everybody (if you have S parents ...) or are probabilistic (how many went into technical things?), or, you just didn't ask that particular question.

i.e., your mistake is the following equation (which you are are assuming)

(the sum of all MBTI predictors for type X) = (the sum of all characteristics all individuals have of a type X)

 

[Architect]

By the way this thought experiment - which could be carried out*, is strictly falsifiable (yes I know all about Karl Popper btw). That is you actually could do a world wide type experiment, and then could devise as many falsifyable predictions as you care, and then test them. Since everybody in the world has been tested against the theory you would have exhausted every possible negative case (within the limits of testing).

This is unlike physics. For example, for GR we can only test what is available to us - our local gravitational neighborhood, what is easily observable (light bending during eclipses), etc. The vast majority of the universe is unmeasured and unmeasureable given the limits of c - even assuming you had a ship that could try to examine some large fraction of the universe.

So in this sense MBTI is on a firmer basis than GR because the 'universe' that it describes is easy available to us on earth. So, MBTI studies actually test more of the universe population space than your average physics experiment.

* And it isn't particularly difficult, with computerized teaching you would want to know the type of each child so as to personalize the teaching.

 

[Tannhauser]

You twisted my example above in an attempt to prove your point. I say you can put all the INTP's you find in the world, without asking if they like parties, and then test the population to see how many like parties. You can also test ...

• Of the ones who had S parents, were they rebellious?
• Of the ones who had N parents, were they more self accepting?
• How much of the population went into STEM? How many went into the humanities? The theory would predict more would have gone into technical fields, or the humanities from a technical standpoint
• ...

Get it? You can test for a million different ideas, none of which are used as predictors, because they're not good test predictor questions. Either because they don't apply to everybody (if you have S parents ...) or are probabilistic (how many went into technical things?), or, you just didn't ask that particular question.

i.e., your mistake is the following equation (which you are are assuming)

(the sum of all MBTI predictors for type X) = (the sum of all characteristics all individuals have of a type X)

But wouldn't that amount to using, say, an individual's predisposition to aggression as a predictor of crime commitment? You can surely do that without providing any speculative theory about the origin of that aggression. It's like any classification problem and/or a simple regression. That, to me, just builds on the idea that MBTI is a taxonomy, and that all the underlying Jungian stuff is narratives designed to make it look fancy.

I could ask whether the theory predicts certain things a-priori, but that would be unfair because I know it doesn't. In order to predict things a-priori you should not have seen the phenomena at all beforehand, like bending of light in gravitational fields. When talking about what people do in a society, we must necessarily draw from examples we know of. Like: quiet, thinking people are more likely to hate dinner parties.

In order for it to be a viable scientific theory, there must be a statement somewhere that says: if we apply the theory on this certain scenario, although no-one knows at this point what the result actually is, the theory predicts such and such.

edit: and before someone says again that I am being unnecessarily strict, I am talking about a specific subsection of the MBTI which claims to actually generate meaningful statements about the human psyche. We don't need to hold the statistical facts of MBTI up the scientific standard, but everything else we do.

 

[Tannhauser]

By the way this thought experiment - which could be carried out*, is strictly falsifiable (yes I know all about Karl Popper btw). That is you actually could do a world wide type experiment, and then could devise as many falsifyable predictions as you care, and then test them. Since everybody in the world has been tested against the theory you would have exhausted every possible negative case (within the limits of testing).

This is unlike physics. For example, for GR we can only test what is available to us - our local gravitational neighborhood, what is easily observable (light bending during eclipses), etc. The vast majority of the universe is unmeasured and unmeasureable given the limits of c - even assuming you had a ship that could try to examine some large fraction of the universe.

So in this sense MBTI is on a firmer basis than GR because the 'universe' that it describes is easy available to us on earth. So, MBTI studies actually test more of the universe population space than your average physics experiment.

* And it isn't particularly difficult, with computerized teaching you would want to know the type of each child so as to personalize the teaching.

It's actually the other way around. The reason we know GR is a good theory is exactly that it doesn't have access to all phenomena it predicts. This way we know for sure the theory is not just categorizing observed phenomena but instead provides a deep look into the underlying mechanisms of things.

 

[Architect]

But wouldn't that amount to using, say, an individual's predisposition to aggression as a predictor of crime commitment? You can surely do that without providing any speculative theory about the origin of that aggression.

Sure, or you could make it simpler and say "A person who commits a crime is a criminal". Just leave it there. But by saying aggression is a predictor is making a model which is more useful (but correlation isn't causation), and if you continued from there you might be able to develop a theory which is even better.

It's like any classification problem and/or a simple regression.

I agree it is a classification system, don't see that as a negative. Particle physics is largely a classification system too.

I could ask whether the theory predicts certain things a-priori, but that would be unfair because I know it doesn't

Fallacy of "Denying the antecedent", i.e.

"If it predicts certain things a-priori, then it is true
I know it does not
Therefore, it is not true"

In order to predict things a-priori you should not have seen the phenomena at all beforehand

Wrong! It makes no difference actually. Most of quantum mechanics theory was discovered post-fact. GR is special in that it was largely pre-fact (only mercury and Michelson-Morely was known)

In order for it to be a viable scientific theory, there must be a statement somewhere that says: if we apply the theory on this certain scenario, although no-one knows at this point what the result actually is, the theory predicts such and such.

Wrong! It happens all the time that a theory simply explain existing phenomenon, it's the most common situation. Evolution was certainly like that, QM as I mentioned, thermodynamics - we knew all about how fluids acted, the Photoelctric effect (Einstein was simply describing known phenomenon), E&M, the Fresnel equations, on and on and on ... as I say GR is the exception rather than the rule

It's actually the other way around. The reason we know GR is a good theory is exactly that it doesn't have access to all phenomena it predicts. This way we know for sure the theory is not just categorizing observed phenomena but instead provides a deep look into the underlying mechanisms of things.

What?? Don't know what to say to that.

 

[redbaron]

Instead of arguing whatever it is you are bothering about, you folks should pick at where the theory fails. For example, everybody engages in physical activity throughout the day. We all cook, clean, use the bathroom, eat, use the shower, and we all enjoy this to some degree. So how is it that an INTP with Si in the tert can enjoy a meal? Even adding in Beebe's extension you get Se in the trickster position, but I don't see INTP's engaging in food fights all the time (but they'll get a belly laugh from them when watching the Three Stooges) as you might expect from Se trickster. How does this work at all?

So, have at it.

You like slapstick and laugh at it because of Se trickster function! Checkmate skeptics - MBTI wins!

 

[Architect]

You like slapstick and laugh at it because of Se trickster function! Checkmate skeptics - MBTI wins!

<pie in face>

 

[Architect]

I could ask whether the theory predicts certain things a-priori, but that would be unfair because I know it doesn't. In order to predict things a-priori you should not have seen the phenomena at all beforehand ...

Gotcha! I found the flaw in your thinking, please don't sidestep this point; address it directly.

You are equating the profiles to the theory in your 'circular argument' idea. That is, you say that because the profile behavioral descriptions define an individual as a type, and those individuals are used to validate MBTI, it's circular. Here is your mistake, I'll underscore this point

The profiles are not the theory

The Theory is the constellation of the functions and the interactions between them (e.g. the Stack). All of the profiles are derivative of that, 'solutions to the equation' as it were in this instance. Thus there is ambiguity and a hit or miss element to them, and why there are potentially an infinite number of profiles. Why are there so many INTP profiles? Because they're all different 'solutions'. No person fits any particular profile exactly, but we all take more or less from all of them.

So yes there is a circular nature to the profiles - by definition. But the theory is the functions in their constellation.

 

[Tannhauser]

Gotcha! I found the flaw in your thinking, please don't sidestep this point; address it directly.

You are equating the profiles to the theory in your 'circular argument' idea. That is, you say that because the profile behavioral descriptions define an individual as a type, and those individuals are used to validate MBTI, it's circular. Here is your mistake, I'll underscore this point

The profiles are not the theory

The Theory is the constellation of the functions and the interactions between them (e.g. the Stack). All of the profiles are derivative of that, 'solutions to the equation' as it were in this instance.

But this has been my point all along, starting with the thread considering GR and so on. The profiles are a taxonomy that can generate various statistical statements. On the other hand, when I say "the theory" I mean all the theory which supposedly is the raison d'etre of the profiles. That includes functions and all the stuff about inward/outward energy and other Jungian speculations. I have tried to argue that this "theory" is not the source of the practical knowledge that MBTI provides. That was roughly what I meant by "MBTI is a fraud" in the other thread.

Thus there is ambiguity and a hit or miss element to them, and why there are potentially an infinite number of profiles. Why are there so many INTP profiles? Because they're all different 'solutions'. No person fits any particular profile exactly, but we all take more or less from all of them.

And that is precisely why it is not scientific. If, ultimately, it doesn't say anything concrete and it is all up to us to interpret it and construct narratives around it, it doesn't actually make a difference whether it is there or not in the first place – for the purpose of partitioning the population into personality types.

 

[Tannhauser]

Fallacy of "Denying the antecedent", i.e.

"If it predicts certain things a-priori, then it is true
I know it does not
Therefore, it is not true"

The actual statement is "If it does not predict things a-priori, then it is not scientific" or the converse of "If it is scientific, then it predicts things a-priori".

Damn, we are getting real nerdy with this stuff.

 

[Architect]

But this has been my point all along, starting with the thread considering GR and so on. The profiles are a taxonomy that can generate various statistical statements. On the other hand, when I say "the theory" I mean all the theory which supposedly is the raison d'etre of the profiles. That includes functions and all the stuff about inward/outward energy and other Jungian speculations. I have tried to argue that this "theory" is not the source of the practical knowledge that MBTI provides. That was roughly what I meant by "MBTI is a fraud" in the other thread.

OK, I think I understand your point now. But I still don't see the problem. Let's try the GR example again, take the field equation

​

In this form it tells you nothing practical about a gravitational field, in that it won't tell you how the earth rotates around the sun. To get an idea of how to solve it (in the exact case to make it easy) look here. What you end up with is a set of partial differential equations, which then can be solved to account for the earth/mercury orbit. In the degenerate case it results in Newtons equation, as it must.

How is this different from the function theory? That posits the existence of things (the functions) which have particular characteristics, and that people will 'have' these functions in a particular strength order.

The profiles then are different 'solutions' to that general theory. If the Type is the Nature then the environment is the nurture, and an INTP will develop somewhat differently in different environments. So some profiles will resonate more with a particular INTP than another.

Is it really that hard?

 

[Black Rose]

@Tannhauser

A theory is about the organizational structure used to account for regularities in data. Carl Jung observed hundreds (perhaps thousands) of individuals and so the data he collected was personal (subjective). But even though it was subjective he was able to find regularities. He came up with I/E as the first regularity and later on described the functions similarly (regularities). It takes time to develop an "intuition" of what he meant because you must observer the same patterns he did and that means you must know several people very well. You must know the characteristics a person has and what they are drawn too. You have to get into their minds and that is the subjective part.

In the game Go, recently achieved parody with humans with Alpha Go, a player might not know how to explain a move they mad to win the game. They intuited the answers. The same is with the higher abstract aspects of typology. Strategy have been developed for wining Go yet the complexity of the game prohibits knowing the best moves further on. Games usually follow regularities or the players would not understand what to do. I think that Typology is more like a game than a predictive model but this does not mean theory is not present. Processing the data collected is subjective and intuitive. The brain is a powerful supercomputer and finds patterns that are implicit. For the mind to share what it knows explicitly must be rendered with nuance.

People are way more complicated than games today. The amount of data you collect on them will be stored in you mind better than any notebook or computer because your mind is more sophisticated. Once you reach a threshold of knowing people you can organize the data with what regularities you find. And then you will be able to make a theory as to why those regularities exist. Carl Jung's theory about the direction of energy I/E I think is a good start. People move inward or outward. There is a release of energy or an absorption of energy being the cause and by the direction in and out. These are relationships. A person acts they way they do because of their inner being or because of a relationship to the objective reality. The objective reality my trigger a subjective state and the subjective state is what the focus is on or the focus will be on the object reality itself. Those are relationships, internal and external of where you focus and that focus would be draining energy or gaining energy as rejection or drawing near to the subject and object. A kid may be afraid of mice and run away when they see one or the kid may start thinking "I dislike mice and I dislike chocolate and carrots". Objectively running away deals with reality. The kid that goes on a tangent is being influenced by the subjective state, "I dislike stuff", they forgot about the mouse and went inward.

I/E is the basic theory. You may not be able to objectively state what behavior is I or E but you will be able to understand what I/E is if you contemplate on your own mind because your reference to I/E is inside you. You need to ask your self when and what circumstances you are I or E. Then you may be able "get in their mind" of people by mapping their state to your state and what regularities you find there.

 

[Tannhauser]

OK, I think I understand your point now. But I still don't see the problem. Let's try the GR example again, take the field equation

​

In this form it tells you nothing practical about a gravitational field, in that it won't tell you how the earth rotates around the sun. To get an idea of how to solve it (in the exact case to make it easy) look here. What you end up with is a set of partial differential equations, which then can be solved to account for the earth/mercury orbit. In the degenerate case it results in Newtons equation, as it must.

How is this different from the function theory? That posits the existence of things (the functions) which have particular characteristics, and that people will 'have' these functions in a particular strength order.

The profiles then are different 'solutions' to that general theory. If the Type is the Nature then the environment is the nurture, and an INTP will develop somewhat differently in different environments. So some profiles will resonate more with a particular INTP than another.

Is it really that hard?

This is a good example, because we can compare it with the way MBTI works. In particular how it attaches a non-falsifiable theory to observed phenomena.

Consider what that process would look like with regards the orbit of Mercury. First we would observe its orbit, then make a purely statistical forecast of its future moves (with a certain degree of error rate), and then attach a non-falsifiable "theory" to those predictions. That theory can be anything. Say, that the planet has inward/outward energy based on the time of year that pulls or pushes it away from the sun.

And thus, when you use an unfalsifiable theory to support statistical phenomena that exist regardless of the theory, the theory will be "right" no matter what. To me, that is the whole trick to MBTI.

So then we can ask: what is the difference between our pseudoscientific theory and GR. Well, our theory neither brings anything new to the table nor can be proven wrong (although these go hand in hand). We do have a certain crude "prediction" of the orbit – we can even predict that it is perfectly circular. Whenever that is wrong we can appeal to he fact that it is only a statistical model. But that doesn't help the underlying theory, right? The theory just exists underneath all the predictions as a narrative.

I think it is obvious how this is different from GR. GR itself is a system of equations such that if one of them is at odds with an experiment, the whole system can be said to be wrong – falsifying the theory.

 

[Architect]

...

Your problem is disambiguating descriptive and inferential statistics. MBTI wasn't created through any statistical method, Jung devised the first version from observations of his patients and creating a structure around the patterns. Later practitioners added to it; Kiersey was obsessed with the recurring "archtype" pattern, which was his contribution.

So we use MBTI to describe people, and hand wave any differences away as being inferential statistics, because we don't know enough to be perfectly predicative (e.g. about the role of nurture, and other influences). You have to admit this works pretty well; ISTJ's tend to all act a lot like other ISTJ's.

GR isn't either, like MBTI it was a 'created thing' from the mind of Einstein. Statistics are only used to validate the theory, within measurement error.

The Big Five is a descriptive statistical theory. AFAIK it was simply derived from population studies. So again I think your charge of it not being a theory applies there, it's simply a categorization.

And thus, when you use an unfalsifiable theory to support statistical phenomena that exist regardless of the theory, the theory will be "right" no matter what. To me, that is the whole trick to MBTI.

You keep getting this wrong. People don't act truly randomly, we only use the term in the inferential sense. I.e., people aren't particles in a gas acting randomly based on their environment.

Unless you want to get into a discussion of free will (which I don't), we'll have to assume that people act according to their own set of internal criteria, which is not random.

Look; physics is largely a reductionist approach. It abstracts away the messy details to get down to universal behavior. I don't see how MBTI is any different.