What is the argument against mbti not being meaningless? Vox posted a video explaining how it is meaningless and they had some good points. However i don't think it is meaningless because I have found people including myself who match the ideas of the cognitive function stacks pretty convincingly, and it has helped me understand those people and myself better. Here is the Vox video, let me know your thoughts. http://youtu.be/Q5pggDCnt5M
The main argument would be that they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. If you look into Tann's post history you'd find most of the arguments and discussions being played out.
However i don't think it is meaningless because I have found people including myself who match the ideas of the cognitive function stacks pretty convincingly, and it has helped me understand those people and myself better.
It is obviously useful to some folks, including me. The first time I took a personality test and then had the results explained to me ("normalized" is a good word) was the first day I took a deep breath and didn't feel broken or deficient. Still misunderstood, yup, but once you know what's going on, what you're doing and why, you can think your way out of a lot of mental bogs.
1) I have gotten the same results over years and taking it through various companies.
2) It matches me, my brother, my aunt, my uncle, my cousin, my ex, and some of my best friends to a T. To the point it's eery. My brother and I (both INTPs) finally started feeling understood. INTP fits and the others don't (well, INTJ does), and certain aspects of others fit, but INTP/J is the only one that totally fits.
3) It doesn't JUST pick on or the other. It says what your tendencies are. I'm INTP/INTJ for this reason. I am only slightly P. I am introverted, but not 100%. It uses percentages. I still feel, I just think first (sometimes).
4) The test does say negative things about the types too, at least in my experience. But I think it is important to take the things that seem negative, and make them positive. I.E. INTJs are cold. No, they just don't show emotion. They're also mean, but they just like truth.
5) Isn't saying people love categories, categorizing and putting them into a box?
6) The descriptions aren't as vague as say, horoscopes. Plus, when every single description of INTP fits, but ENFJ definitely does not... I think they are different. They didn't just say, "you're nice". I'm not driven unless I'm interested (INTP), but my ISTJ friend is driven just because they are that personality. They're driven to be on time, follow the rules, etc.
7) I think any test can have flaws, I'm sure it's not always accurate. Plus, what were the conditions of people taking the tests? If someone has just finished a long work day in customer service, they might be prone to answer that they would rather be alone. If they, 5 weeks prior, had just got done with vacation, they might be more likely to answer they didn't mind people and crowds (they were recharged...).
8) I don't think personality tests are good indicators of how well someone will do in a job. The reasons being that it only tells you how someone thinks, not what they like. My brother and I are both INTPs and we like vastly different jobs, but for the same reasons. We both need mental stimulation, get bored easily, and are very introverted. However, he likes technology more than I do.
9) I wonder what type of personality started this? The one who doesn't like to be in a box? Jk. haha.
It is obviously useful to some folks, including me. The first time I took a personality test and then had the results explained to me ("normalized" is a good word) was the first day I took a deep breath and didn't feel broken or deficient. Still misunderstood, yup, but once you know what's going on, what you're doing and why, you can think your way out of a lot of mental bogs.
Let's say humans are each a point in an infinite-dimensional space. We can project each person on a 4D subspace (I/E;N/S;T/F;P/J axis) you'd expect as first approximation a gaussian around zero on each of the four axis (where for example on the P/J axis, a positive value means J and a negative P) but nevertheless you could cut each of the four axis in two. This is of course an artificial cut, but it is just a matter of definition, and keeping this in mind, I believe mbti should be valid.
On the other hand, the connection with the jungian functions seems to complicate, since INTP and INTJ are neigbouring, but still have an entirely different function stack (a discontinuity in person space)
The most attractive features of MBTI/Jungian typology fail to hold up to empirical scrutiny.
That is, using the cognitive functions to create descriptions that are more than the sum of their parts. The glue that holds it all together for MBTI cultists involves both the Barnum effect and a lot of confirmation bias.
As a personality survey, it has some merits. It doesn't cover personality facets as, say, the Global 5, but it's a'ight. For example, we might conduct a study to test whether people who score high on Perceiving in the P-J scale aren't more inclined to clutter than those high on Judging.
Let's say humans are each a point in an infinite-dimensional space. We can project each person on a 4D subspace (I/E;N/S;T/F;P/J axis) you'd expect as first approximation a gaussian around zero on each of the four axis (where for example on the P/J axis, a positive value means J and a negative P) but nevertheless you could cut each of the four axis in two. This is of course an artificial cut, but it is just a matter of definition, and keeping this in mind, I believe mbti should be valid.
Let's say humans are each a point in an infinite-dimensional space. We can project each person on a 4D subspace (I/E;N/S;T/F;P/J axis) you'd expect as first approximation a gaussian around zero on each of the four axis (where for example on the P/J axis, a positive value means J and a negative P) but nevertheless you could cut each of the four axis in two. This is of course an artificial cut, but it is just a matter of definition, and keeping this in mind, I believe mbti should be valid.
On the other hand, the connection with the jungian functions seems to complicate, since INTP and INTJ are neigbouring, but still have an entirely different function stack (a discontinuity in person space)
J/P is not an independent dimension and in mbti it has been made incestuously redundant. (huh?) You have E/I which determines the direction of energy, it is not dependent upon any other component of type. Then there is S/N and T/F which respectively determine ones perpetual focus and orientation of judgement and neither requires another component to determine itself.
However J/P in mbti is shorthand for Pe dominance, or Je dominance. In other words, in one instance saying J or P is simultaneously invoking the e/i dimension, the s/n dimension and the t/f dimension.
Judgement and perception are inherent properties of the t/f and s/n dimensions, so there is no need to make a fourth dimension called J/P. The only way a fourth dimension would be internally logically consistent is to specifically denote whether the type's predominant function which determines the majority of it's traits is perception(s/n) or judgement(t/f). Instead of INTP = I>E, N>S, T>F, Pe>Je, we should have INTP = I>E, N>T>F>S (J/P tells us whether T leads or N leads to distinguish between NiTe and TiNe. )
Well, it's not completely meaningless in the sense that it's a taxonomy with some useful groupings. It can give you feedback on, say, how it looks like when a highly logical person interacts with the world.
For example if one is INTP, and hence a logical person, one might feel that one's experience of social interaction just seems different than most people's. So when you take the test and you let it know you are a logical person, it tells you back that a logical person typically behaves in such and such ways, and you can accept the fact that this is actually the way you behave.
That was essentially one of the conclusions in the very long discussions about MBTI in threads like the one onesteptwostep linked to – it's a taxonomy which is useful to some degree for insight into people's patterns of behavior.
As to all the "theory" behind the taxonomy, that's a different story.
J/P is not an independent dimension and in mbti it has been made incestuously redundant. (huh?) You have E/I which determines the direction of energy, it is not dependent upon any other component of type. Then there is S/N and T/F which respectively determine ones perpetual focus and orientation of judgement and neither requires another component to determine itself.
I wouldn't say that. Though you could get away with "J/P in MBTI is short for Pe being dominant over Je" It indicates whether the first extroverted function is perceiving or judging; it says nothing about the dominant function.
In other words, in one instance saying J or P is simultaneously invoking the e/i dimension, the s/n dimension and the t/f dimension.
The attitude of the S/N or T/F function could be argued to be at least as significant as the general function itself. J/P indicates the attitude of the primary perceiving function (or the primary judging function, depending on vantage point). Hence it's a very useful and valid dichotomy, albeit an indirect one.
Which is the real bullshit. Mainstream psych, being phenomenologically based (e.g. statistical studies) and not from theory is not predicative. MBTI has plenty of studies (c.f. The MBTI Manual) but it's primarily a constructed theory, like General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, used to describe observed phenomenon (behavior). Thus, MBTI is a predicative theory. The Big Five, by contrast, was purely developed from observation.
Now like any constructed theory you can always come up with a better one - meaning one that is more precise, or more predicative, or easier to use. But that doesn't obviate the older theory it was built on. An example is GR supplanting Newtonian gravity. Old Newton still works, but Einstein works better.
The persistence of this idea is so tiresome. Jung's theory is highly predicative, we can discuss a million examples, but it's mainstream psych which is mostly bullshit observations. But that never stops the bullshitters (not you guys, to be clear, I'm ranting against 'them')
The MBTI is about statistics and deals with correlations so it's taken out of context when you use it on individuals and look for causal relationships.
It is the case that not all of the bible is utter crap i.e. the golden rule, likewise the MBTI has many aspects which are useful.
A lot of the arguments I see towards the MBTI tends to be pretty strawmanish. It somewhat sometimes mildly annoys me. To be fair I'd love it too if the strawman MBTI died, similarly to how moderately religious or spiritual people would probably be relieved if all the extremists disappeared.
First off, it seems like a big misrepresentation. Isn't the MBTI emphasizing cognitive functions T/F and N/S being internally or externally oriented... and the way the different priorities and orientations create different dynamics of thought and preference rather than the axi (?) being independent and robotic behaviour boxes like a lot of people and badly written websites seem to think?
Reliability: it's the tricky thing. Certainly perhaps the test is flawed, or the test giver is flawed, or the test taker is answering untruthfully (which ties back to test being flawed). But then, a flawed test does not necessarily signify a flawed theoretical premise.
People's success in jobs: there's too many variables there... like management, shit teammates, budgets, external life factors, how well developed the person is... It's a pretty damn weak argument, borderline strawman. This is the fault of corporate human resources departments being assholes, rather than the psychological concepts, I'd say.
Only positive results: Plain wrong. The descriptions include weaknesses and areas of struggle.
Boxing people neatly into categories: Lol, doesn't the literature talk extensively about the complexity and variability of the types, that it indicates preferences and not abilities...not particularly neat... And even if people love categories, it doesn't make categories false! The existence of certain preferences is pain-fucking-ly obvious, and is the reason humans have been trying to develop personality systems for CENTURIES... that's why Jung himself studied historical archetypes.
Comparing it to astrology is pretty low and borders on falacious too.
Yeah. it seems to fall in that sweet spot where the taxonomy is large enough to be somewhat accurate/useful without being inconveniently large/complex.
One could make a taxonomy out of the Big Five, for example... it might even be useful.
Useful only for entertainment: GTFO... my understanding of other people and myself has enormously increased because of the ideas of the cognitive functions, even if I don't go around typing people and am certainly no MBTI cultist. Yeah, yeah anecdotal evidence... This is psychology! In the last hundred years the definitions and understanding of mental workings and illness have constantly changed, and methodologies and conflicting theories all over. I'll take the insight of my anecdotal evidence over dogmatic statements based on research that might end up being debunked in 10 or 20 years. (Such categorical and possibly premature denial of its utility/potential is totally un-INTP. )
Is the MBTI the holy grail theory of everything of psychology? Probably not. But being a flawed theory make it a useless theory? A lot of our understanding of hard science physics is still full of holes around the edges...
J/P is not an independent dimension and in mbti it has been made incestuously redundant. (huh?) You have E/I which determines the direction of energy, it is not dependent upon any other component of type. Then there is S/N and T/F which respectively determine ones perpetual focus and orientation of judgement and neither requires another component to determine itself.
However J/P in mbti is shorthand for Pe dominance, or Je dominance. In other words, in one instance saying J or P is simultaneously invoking the e/i dimension, the s/n dimension and the t/f dimension.
Yes! The MBTI J/P notation is just needlessly confusing and an appalling mistake IMO. The Socionics notation that indicates the dominant function rather than the first extraverted function is obviously superior, and also avoids the confusion of making it seem like an independent axis.
So many people seem to think that the INTP ( INTj ) is a "perceiver", when its dominant function Ti is in fact judging! And the inferior function Fe which is also hugely visible is judging too! FFS... Which leads to the all too often mental circlejerk of coming up with ideas or fears that have no basis in any perceived reality... Ultimately the INTP lives to JUDGE (internally), and perceiving is secondary, which is why everyone here is a judgmental dick (in the silent, smug, contemptuous way of Ti) just like INTJs are judgmental jerkasses (in the in-your face, blunt asshole way of Te).
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.
I wouldn't say that. Though you could get away with "J/P in MBTI is short for Pe being dominant over Je" It indicates whether the first extroverted function is perceiving or judging; *it says nothing about the dominant function.
J/P by itself says nothing about I/E (*as the general attitude), nothing about S/N, and nothing T/F.
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 which is internally inconsistent. Judgment should not be a property of Perception. P/J should inform us of the properties of the functions as the other dichotomies do, not reclassify those properties.
Orienting J/P according to rationality/irrational which are Jungian synonyms for judging and perceiving provides a different picture:
Rational Judgment: Ti, Fi, Te, Fe
Irrational Perception Si, Ni, Se, Ne
Which seems the more internally consistent and logical? Which doesn't alter the meaning of a property?
Someone claiming they are more P than before doesn't make any sense if P implies judgment. This logical error puts statistical validity of the types at risk and is perhaps why only E/I has been substantiated.
The attitude of the S/N or T/F function could be argued to be at least as significant as the general function itself. J/P indicates the attitude of the primary perceiving function (or the primary judging function, depending on vantage point). Hence it's a very useful and valid dichotomy, albeit an indirect one.
That valid and useful dichotomy shows its uselessness when looking at the functions.
What can be said about Ti dominant?
It is Thinking over Feeling
It is Introverted over Extraverted
It is a judgment function and not perception
That is already 3 components of the 4 letter typing system. The last component can be deduced by addressing whether the type has auxiliary Ne or Se.
Where did we ever need to know whether the perception or judgment was extraverted?
Socionists refer to all 16 types using only 3 letters(yes now I'm talking about Socionics) so it is possible to question the validity or usefulness of the four letter system.
Ultimately the INTP lives to JUDGE (internally), and perceiving is secondary, which is why everyone here is a judgmental dick (in the silent, smug, contemptuous way of Ti) just like INTJs are judgmental jerkasses (in the in-your face, blunt asshole way of Te).
On MBTI:
I'd say understanding the theory and functions in some depth is pretty useful, because then you can look at a stranger, notice just a *few* traits, and infer a bunch of others with pretty reliable success. You can do this with other personality systems too of course, even ones you derive yourself, but personally I've found MBTI more useful than most.
And it isn't as simple as just being a taxonomy and therefore tautological. Categorising people non-judgementally lends validity to minorities who might otherwise be dismissed as deviants (or evil, or lazy, or cruel, or arrogant, or whatever other pejorative you might have thrown your way for being different). A comprehensive description from a third party of what makes you tick can go a long way towards normalising you in the eyes of your local community, simply because it proves there are other people like you who operate differently and have other strengths which may not be immediately obvious to the dominant culture. This point might not be obvious to some (god knows why, considering we INTPs are minorities ourselves), but multiple posters have talked about it already - how seeing there was a full explanation for the way they deviated from the norm, and how there were others like them out there, made them feel *not broken*. That's pretty fucking huge. And yes, it can be as simple as just having someone else say to you (in the form of a test result, or profile page): "Hey, I get you, and there are others just like you out there - a whole group of you!" Think: nerds, trauma support groups, LGBT... even something as simple as getting a medical diagnosis for a rare condition that isn't understood. Yeah, it's a description of what's already happening and observable, but the salient point is that it's been seen before and you're not alone. You're a valid Type Of Person too, just like anyone else! It makes you feel less freaky, which is a good thing because we're wired to fear being ostracised. Essentially it provides an immediate, though abstract, sense of community - something which is often lacking for rarer types. And anyway, I'd argue that MBTI/function theory/whatever provides a lot more than just superficial descriptions.
MBTI led you to this forum. What did you find here?
Because I found a lot of people who share in my plight. I've also found that a lot of our interests align.
Is that not proper justification there is some merit in personality typing?
The video linked in the OP is a joke, and is based on a 2014 article at Vox by Joseph Stromberg, who very much failed to do his homework.
Contrary to what you sometimes hear, and notwithstanding that there are important distinctions to be made between "hard sciences" and "soft sciences," the four MBTI dichotomies now have decades of data in support of their validity and reliability — and a combination of meta-review and large supplemental study in 2003 concluded that the MBTI was more or less on a par with the Big Five in terms of its psychometric respectability.
You can read more about that — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in my long Another MBTI "Debunking" post (at PerC), which was written in response to that very same Vox article.
I tried to reply to this. but there's just so. much. to. say.
TL;DR - We must keep in mind that the traditional MBTI is but one system in an ecosystem of sister theories (Jung's, Myer's, Beebes', Keirsey's, Ashura's, etc) which all inform each other and slowly but surely rub off on each other (evolve).
The question of MBTI's validity or usefulness is a different topic than the validity of the entirety of the ecosystem or phenomenon. And the question of practical value (which surely can be argued for, and with fair cause) shouldn't be conflated with the question of whether the entire phenomenon being described is limited to a heuristic tool or whether it's a categorical reality of human nature or the species.
I consider myself a researcher in this department, and as someone whose been researching for years now, I can provide tangible evidence for the existence of types to those who are interested. It's not for the casual hobbyist, it's meaty stuff. The raw data; not dressed up in prose.
I have no idea about how MBTI or psychology actually works, but MBTI allows people to find like-minded people easier.
Simply compare the members on this forum with you friends on your FB account and tell me who you can relate with more easily and have a real conversation about general topics with.
but, personally i think about people who try to identify another person's personality type without having in depth conversations with to be plain BS
- will MBTI tell what you will be good at? no, will MBTI tell how much you will earn? no, will MBTI tell who you will like no?, will MBTI tell how you will lead your life? no
- for me, MBTI gives me an opportunity to use the resources of people who have similar way of thinking, which in turn allows me to apply their experiences/ knowledge to my life to make more informed decisions about my future
The main problem with Jungian typology, MBTI and Big Five, is that there's so many people who are using these theories to justify superiority complexes using the genetic fallacy, and so many who are justifying their favoured theory to make money and advance their personal careers, that anything useful that is said usually gets drowned out and corrupted by all the claims of the biased people.
The main problem with Jungian typology, MBTI and Big Five, is that there's so many people who are using these theories to justify superiority complexes using the genetic fallacy, and so many who are justifying their favoured theory to make money and advance their personal careers, that anything useful that is said usually gets drowned out and corrupted by all the claims of the biased people.
Which is the real bullshit. Mainstream psych, being phenomenologically based (e.g. statistical studies) and not from theory is not predicative. MBTI has plenty of studies (c.f. The MBTI Manual) but it's primarily a constructed theory, like General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, used to describe observed phenomenon (behavior). Thus, MBTI is a predicative theory. The Big Five, by contrast, was purely developed from observation.
Now like any constructed theory you can always come up with a better one - meaning one that is more precise, or more predicative, or easier to use. But that doesn't obviate the older theory it was built on. An example is GR supplanting Newtonian gravity. Old Newton still works, but Einstein works better.
The persistence of this idea is so tiresome. Jung's theory is highly predicative, we can discuss a million examples, but it's mainstream psych which is mostly bullshit observations. But that never stops the bullshitters (not you guys, to be clear, I'm ranting against 'them')
Name a single predicative statement of Jung's theory that is both falsifiable and not already apparent from observation.
For example, if someone scores high on Ne-like behavior, what more can you "predict" other than they will continue to have Ne-like behavior in the near future.
And btw, this is basically a reiteration of the discussion in this thread, so I hope for something new this time.
A lot of work has been done on this, go read any of Drenth's books, they're full of such predictions. He works from a premise of taking the theory and applying it situationally in an INTP's life, thus being predicative. From The INTP Quest
INTPs who have yet to develop Ne may also think and behave more conventionally. They may focus on their schooling and relationships without thinking too deeply about the bigger picture of things. Only when they open themselves to the world of Ne ideas and possibilities do they become seekers. And once Ne takes center stage, their quest for purpose becomes exceedingly more complex (13)
Simply from knowing about how Ne should operate in the life of an INTP, this is a prediction about how an INTP who didn't develop their Ne significantly would probably think (important - not how they behave), and how it unfolds. Purely hypothetical situation that is probably true for a population of INTP's at a certain age. This certainly didn't come from any observation (though like any good theory it might be inspired by one from Drenths perspective) because it deals with how INTP's think, not how they behave.
The book is full of examples like this*, I just grabbed that at random, and the cut/paste doesn't work from his PDF's so I won't give more examples. But just get the book or read his site and you'll see them everywhere.
So, falsifiable? Yes. And before anybody gets anal on me, with psychology you can't have strict falsifiability where one examples kills the idea. You have to take a statistical approach, which is why he uses the word "may". So this is falsifiable by testing a population, and yes its apparent that it would very likely turn out to be true.
Second, 'not apparent from observation'. Well that's not such a good measure you have. For example, you could say that General Relativity couldn't have been a theory, because it's predictions were apparent from observation. Michelson Morley certainly, and stellar deflection which was used to prove his theory, but could equally have been an observation to explain (if anybody had looked).
What you're getting at here is what the Big Five is, which is simply an statistical observation from population studies. Certainly nobody sat down and came up with the big five, it was pure observationally derived, which is why it isn't a theory.
And btw, this is basically a reiteration of the discussion in this thread, so I hope for something new this time.
I attempted to give a different angle on it, with examples, but I'm getting blue in the face explaining this over and over again. Honestly I'm not sure you really grasp the nature of a predicative theory? Not trying to pick on you but if this doesn't help than I don't know what will.
Reminds me in reverse of my relationship with Engineers. They hold Physics up as sacrosanct, they love to say things like "well that's physics" - meaning you can't argue with it. Written in holy writ, in stone. As an ex physicist I know the things aren't so clear cut as they make out.
Likewise here, the difference between a predicative and non predicative theory is is usually clear if you're experienced in these things, yet we know you can't get too anal about it (e.g., GR, SR, QM all have their limits too)
* For a different take Lenore Thompsons idea that Ti is situational and slippery logic. Not observational, but taken from the theory of how introversion works, applied to thinking.
You can read more about that — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in my long Another MBTI "Debunking" post (at PerC), which was written in response to that very same Vox article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
P/J should inform us of the properties of the functions as the other dichotomies do, not reclassify those properties.
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.
Orienting J/P according to rationality/irrational which are Jungian synonyms for judging and perceiving provides a different picture:
Rational Judgment: Ti, Fi, Te, Fe
Irrational Perception Si, Ni, Se, Ne
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.
What can be said about Ti dominant?
It is Thinking over Feeling
It is Introverted over Extraverted
It is a judgment function and not perception
That is already 3 components of the 4 letter typing system. The last component can be deduced by addressing whether the type has auxiliary Ne or Se.
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".
Where did we ever need to know whether the perception or judgment was extraverted?
We already know since we've said we are Ti. The question is redundant.
Socionists refer to all 16 types using only 3 letters(yes now I'm talking about Socionics) so it is possible to question the validity or usefulness of the four letter system.
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.
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...
Have to agree with OmoInisa. In reality the JCF-MBTI (i'm gonna make a distinction here and call the other one the 4-letter-MBTI) isn't saying "a perception dominant type" when they use the letter "P" -- they're saying high Pe/Ji user, so they're just describing different things.
But ESC is right that if you're talking about JCF-MBTI, then it's redundant. Let me explain. The JCF-MBTI really shouldn't use the 4-letter naming conventions. A type should be called "TiNe" and that's that. The label "INTP" makes no sense to the JCF-MBTI because the P/J dichotomy is deducible. BUT.... I mean, if you stop at INT.... then you wouldn't know if it's NiTe or TiNe, right?
So the P/J coding is necessary IF you're trying to do the conversion from 4-letter-MBTI to JCF-MBTI, because otherwise you don't know how to convert it over. The fact that socionics avoids this isssue with it's 3 letter code makes it a more internally consistent system.*
Basically what needs to be understood is that MBTI is actually a two system hybrid that is internally conflicted in its present state. It's in a process of evolution. The MBTI wasn't originally built to become the JCF-MBTI, so the whole reason why 4-letter coding is used in the first place IS because it's *not* (originally) trying to 'get at' the functions --- it deliberately wishes to highlight 4 qualities/dichotomies that make the most difference in people's end-behavior differences.
Something I wrote once on this topic:
Conflicting Paradigms
The MBTI, while most commonly viewed as a single system, does not address both its quantification and its theoretical foundation through a single system. Instead, it operates as a combination of two systems of measure; a four letter code (for example: INFP), and four associated functions (such as Fi-Ne-Si-Te) which define each of the sixteen types. The former is a behavioristic instrument which categorizes people based on the predominance of one attribute over the other. The latter is a cognitive system that describes people by their underlying psychology. We might be tempted to say that the first is the face of MBTI while the latter is what’s at heart, but even this is also disputed among practitioners. The role that each of these systems plays in MBTI is contested, with some practitioners giving priority to the four letter code, making it more similar in ways to Keirsey’s model, while others prioritize the Jungian functions.
Furthermore, these two systems carry fundamental differences such as in their definition of the J/P dichotomy. The four letter code does not match the functions 1:1 and this quickly becomes evident when we attempt to extrapolate behavior from the functions (or vice versa) to find a stark mismatch. Often a person will be typed as ENTP through the four letter code’s methodology, then go on to read their description and be told they possess Ne and Ti. This process of reverse deduction of functions is rather fallacious, as we can no more infer that possessing Ne-Ti necessarily results in ENTP behavior than we can infer that ENTP behavior implies the functions Ne and Ti are prioritized in the psyche. Theoretically speaking, these two systems of measurement should be kept separate. However, their union has persevered due to a moderate level of statistical correlation between the two measures.
A type can manifest the behaviors expected by their four-letter-code designation when their develoment is infantile. But because of this, the correlation between these two systems can only accurately type those with one-sided development. The MBTI, by its simplification of the functions to behavioral polarities can only differentiate people whose development is so outwardly unambiguous that the sheer overreliance on certain processes makes the type evident.
* = Let me give you a better example: Alpha-Pe. What is an Alpha-Pe? NeTi. That's only two pieces of information.
And if you had A = Alpha, B = Beta, G = Gamma, D = Delta...
And if you had Pe = 1, Je = 2, Pi = 3, Ji = 4....
Then A1 = Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
Then A2 = Fe-Si-Ne-Ti
In this case, the whole hierarchy is deducible just using 2 bits of information. It can even be 1.
The MBTI's 4-letter system "works" as a makeshift conversion to JCF-MBTI using 4 dichotomies because it hits at less vital points. But it's really a crappy and outdated codification to use, so.... it "works"... but it's not efficient if you're really talking about JCF-MBTI.
More commonly nowadays, "INTP" is used as a single word-name or shortcut to denote Ti-Ne-Si-Fe all at once, so it's really just 1 bit of information if you look at it that way. It's like the whole thing with calling a type "The Architect". There's one designation that matches.
err, but why are we debating semantics again?
TL;DR -- If we're taking about the naming apparatus for the JCF-MBTI, then the name can be any one of many categories which together combine to narrow down the list of 16 down to 1.
The TiNe can be called:
* Alpha + Ji-dom
* Introverted + Abstract + Logical + Revising(Pe/Ji axis)
* Ti/Fe user > Ne/Si user + Introverted
* Logic Dom > Abstract Aux + Introverted
* etc
and the list goes on...
The underlying phenomenon is what is of most importance here, and what is more worth talking about. ^^
Have to agree with OmoInisa. In reality the JCF-MBTI (i'm gonna make a distinction here and call the other one the 4-letter-MBTI) isn't saying "a perception dominant type" when they use the letter "P" -- they're saying high Pe/Ji user, so they're just describing different things.
But ESC is right that if you're talking about JCF-MBTI, then it's redundant. Let me explain. The JCF-MBTI really shouldn't use the 4-letter naming conventions. A type should be called "TiNe" and that's that. The label "INTP" makes no sense to the JCF-MBTI because the P/J dichotomy is deducible. BUT.... I mean, if you stop at INT.... then you wouldn't know if it's NiTe or TiNe, right?
So the P/J coding is necessary IF you're trying to do the conversion from 4-letter-MBTI to JCF-MBTI, because otherwise you don't know how to convert it over. The fact that socionics avoids this isssue with it's 3 letter code makes it a more internally consistent system.*
Basically what needs to be understood is that MBTI is actually a two system hybrid that is internally conflicted in its present state. It's in a process of evolution. The MBTI wasn't originally built to become the JCF-MBTI, so the whole reason why 4-letter coding is used in the first place IS because it's *not* (originally) trying to 'get at' the functions --- it deliberately wishes to highlight 4 qualities/dichotomies that make the most difference in people's end-behavior differences.
Something I wrote once on this topic:
* = Let me give you a better example: Alpha-Pe. What is an Alpha-Pe? NeTi. That's only two pieces of information.
And if you had A = Alpha, B = Beta, G = Gamma, D = Delta...
And if you had Pe = 1, Je = 2, Pi = 3, Ji = 4....
Then A1 = Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
Then A2 = Fe-Si-Ne-Ti
In this case, the whole hierarchy is deducible just using 2 bits of information. It can even be 1.
The MBTI's 4-letter system "works" as a makeshift conversion to JCF-MBTI using 4 dichotomies because it hits at less vital points. But it's really a crappy and outdated codification to use, so.... it "works"... but it's not efficient if you're really talking about JCF-MBTI.
More commonly nowadays, "INTP" is used as a single word-name or shortcut to denote Ti-Ne-Si-Fe all at once, so it's really just 1 bit of information if you look at it that way. It's like the whole thing with calling a type "The Architect". There's one designation that matches.
err, but why are we debating semantics again?
TL;DR -- If we're taking about the naming apparatus for the JCF-MBTI, then the name can be any one of many categories which together combine to narrow down the list of 16 down to 1.
The TiNe can be called:
* Alpha + Ji-dom
* Introverted + Abstract + Logical + Revising(Pe/Ji axis)
* Ti/Fe user > Ne/Si user + Introverted
* Logic Dom > Abstract Aux + Introverted
* etc
and the list goes on...
The underlying phenomenon is what is of most importance here, and what is more worth talking about. ^^
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
It's a mistake to refer to "INTP = ITN = Ti Ne" as a "Jung-derived type."
When Myers declared that the auxiliary function's attitude would be the opposite of the dominant's, she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in a very small minority among Jung scholars. I agree with the majority of Jung scholars — and I really think it's the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole — that Jung believed that a person's second function, to the extent that it was differentiated and put to service as the auxiliary function, would have the same attitude as the dominant (which Jung referred to as the person's "conscious attitude").
If you're interested — and who wouldn't be, eh? — you can find a long explanation (with Jung quotes!) of why Myers' view is all-but-insupportable in this post.
Buuut as a more general issue, and in case you're interested in a generous helping of reckful on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack (where INTJs are Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTPs are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, and ZOMG, INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common) — you'll find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and this post.
... Actually, we're discussing syntax and morphology. (NOW we're debating semantics. Are you proud of yourself? )
And it is important because the comprehensibility and practicality of notation is fundamental to ease of transmission and clarity of thought for anyone interested. And because the J/P notation is E biased. Just imagine if the world instead preferred Ji ! Do you even "INTP"?! Ji-Pe master race!
No, the mistake is yours. It is very much a Jung-derived type. Jung-dogmatic is something else. Semantics. Nobody can deny the various MBTI theories were derived from Jung.
Besides, my point was actually about the validity of a 3 letter code and that Jung DID establish a hierarchy. 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.
@Kuu - damn you ninja!
er, Alpha = Ti/Fe+Ne/Si functions. So Alpha-Pe is a Pe-dom Alpha, and alphas only have those functions, so there's only 1 option.
I agree though, that too few data bits doesn't give enough info. Simple isn't always better, which Apple recently proved by getting rid of the headphone jack.
@Tannhauser - I like all your points. I'll get to the but's in a second.
First, some observations:
The 4-letter-MBTI and tautology.
If you take the official MBTI it uses very short phrases and word association exercises to try to differentiate between its 4 dichotomies. I think the simplification of the questions (whether deliberately or not) contributes to it's ability to appear to say more than the info it attains.
When you get results back that are 4 pages long, but you only answered 70 single word/phrase questions -- then it does seem to give you more info than what you inputted. But the general, redundant answering of certain ways versus others gives the instrument enough confidence to guess at an underlying behavioral pattern. And so it goes on to describe the behavioral pattern and how it plays out in the real world through a million examples.
This ties into how Drenth's book and others could technically seem to predict information. In a way you could say they do. They predict how a certain disposition plays itself out --- while the disposition was itself inferred to exist using less input data than the amount of data the elaboration gives back to you.
If Type is said to be a combination of 4 dispositions, and those dispositions consistently manifest predictable sets of traits, then it's a valuable heuristic. As many in this thread have made note of; for finding similar minds, interactions, etc.
It doesn't have to appeal to hard science to win here, because it wins by what it offers -- whether it's true or not on some more fundamental level (re: Relativity being now more "fundamental" than Newtonian -- but Newtonian still is worked for its application at the time). And by win I mean gain support and popular merit.
~~~
Now where Tannhauser seems to be going is to the truth question I mentioned earlier. Tools for looking at human nature via angles are fine and nice, but some people aren't in it to get a practical and functional apparatus for human interfacing.
Some people want to know what's the actual nature of humanity as can be verified through some sort of consistent, empirical base --- not a system which (while, derived from observation) highlights certain favorite observed elements, picking and choosing from the potentially infinite list of characteristics that we could conglomerate together to inform ourselves about humans. And then making a model from those favorite/selected traits that is good enough to give us a system of behavioral prediction because of the causal cascade that results from having dispositions.
Bipolar is a disposition. OCD is a disposition. If you can identify something with a small amount of info, then the rest of what we know about the disposition can be very informative and expand someone's knowledge of what's happening to them.
Prediction alone does not make the logic behind a theory right. I could say the sun is a god that flies through the sky every day and fights the moon god every so many days, and that's why the moon goes black. The interpretation can match the observation and even make predictions ("they will fight again in 7 days"), but the interpretation is debatable as being the fundamental cause.
Again, we need to differentiate the question of MBTI or any model's practical value/utility from the question of its reality as a description of some innate element of humanity and it's architecture.
Once we know what question we're arguing, we can have a fruitful debate.
Now where Tannhauser seems to be going is to the truth question I mentioned earlier. Tools for looking at human nature via angles are fine and nice, but some people aren't in it to get a practical and functional apparatus for human interfacing.
Some people want to know what's the actual nature of humanity as can be verified through some sort of consistent, empirical base
Yup, that's the problem with these arguments. Find me a field of human knowledge where such a thing exists. You can't, because you will never get to the 'actual nature' of anything through any empirical means. Feynman had some good lectures on this point.
Shall we have a discussion of Epistemology here? You guys are walking around that campfire.
not a system which (while, derived from observation) highlights certain favorite observed elements, picking and choosing from the potentially infinite list of characteristics that we could conglomerate together to inform ourselves about humans.
That's what a system is. A theory or system takes the chaos of reality and prunes away until it gets something that is useful, consistent. If it's a good one its also predicative. But it won't give you that Qualia you seek.
No, the mistake is yours. It is very much a Jung-derived type. Jung-dogmatic is something else. Semantics. Nobody can deny the various MBTI theories were derived from Jung.
@Architect - Aye. I've found that those whose objection to MBTI are as such, also generally have little enthusiasm for "psychology" as a whole and are the ones to often chant "psychology is bullshit".
The MBTI is about as good, practically, as many of the DSM's present definitions of dispositions (and consequential behavioral effects) which are currently accepted and used for patient diagnosis -- notwithstanding their limits.
I do, however, share the sentiment of dissatisfaction with our present state of knowledge, when it comes to psychology. Psychology is still in its infancy; in a type of pre-scientific state not unlike chemistry or medicine was back in the day.
I agree that psychology, being subjective by definition, can never exist as a wholly object-ive field -- and first-person subjectivity (phenomenology) will continue to exist as an elusive element, so long as we're sentient beings. But we can certainly do so much more, as far as deciphering everything else.
And I do think we can arrive at a theory/system that properly describes all the mechanical/algorithmic components involved in, and which birth, consciousness (re: cognitive science), even if the phenomenon of consciousness itself remains elusive in the same way eyesight has to be experienced ("qualia") to be truly known.
Not really. You could look at it from the perspective of Pe, Pi or Ji just as easily as from the more common Je. Purely semantic. The dichotomy is an indicator in an analytical system after all, rather than an intrinsic element of the base theory.
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.
Fair point, as far as noobs and functions are concerned. But then noobs are not concerned with functions. In fact, the four-letter code is much better for noobs than the three-letter.
We're looking for ways to give as powerful a tool as possible to the uninitiated without requiring them to deep-dive for their sins. The four letters gives them a lot more information than three letters would. And three letters would not remove the need for a little mental conversion to get at functions, it just make makes it slightly easier than with four letters.
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.
Socionics does this. But it's neither here nor there as far as serious type enthusiasts are concerned. I don't find either convention significantly more or less taxing.
I happen to find the four-letter easier when converting, since I'm more intimate with it. ESC for example is probably the reverse.
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...
Fair point. But the associations you rail against are not without validity. Only the crude narrowing and exaggeration of J/P-related qualities poses serious difficulty. But that's little different to the treatment of the other three letters.
For the use of the layman, the four MBTI dichotomies are more than good enough (all the more so since it requires no mental gymnastics to get at the 16 types, whereas any three-letter code inevitably would).
In this, dearest reckful's sermons aren't totally bereft of point. *dives for cover*
@Kuu - damn you ninja!
er, Alpha = Ti/Fe+Ne/Si functions. So Alpha-Pe is a Pe-dom Alpha, and alphas only have those functions, so there's only 1 option.
That's just cheating. You're making it 2-bits by unloading the rest of the info into a completely arbitrary memorization scheme, that is not immediately apparent and deducible from the code. People would constantly confuse that Alpha = ... and not Beta or whatever. It would work if humans were computers, but we're not. The proposed socionics-style 3 letter works better than the present 4 one because it leverages the simple rule of sequence, which is extremely likely to be understood by anyone over 3 years old because "first=important" is a meme that we all internalize when young, and therefore highly intuitive.
Since you brought up Apple, it's like them making the smarphones with touchscreens. The touch interface is so intuitive that 3 years olds and octagenarians pick it up in minutes.
I didn't said the theory did. I said the code does. And then people misunderstand the code, and from it, their distorted understanding of the theory begins.
Fair point, as far as noobs and functions are concerned. But then noobs are not concerned with functions. In fact, the four-letter code is much better for noobs than the three-letter.
Indeed, they're not concerned with functions BECAUSE the four-letter code makes it unintuitive to uncompress them from it! Which is part of why there's so much stupidly retarded "information" out there. And then we get stupid articles like the one that started this whole thread...
And letting noobs easily reach the functions would obviously be more powerful than thinking they shouldn't concern themselves with them. It's only an annoying "deep-dive" due to the unintuitiveness of the present 4-letter code.
The four letters gives them a lot more information than three letters would. And three letters would not remove the need for a little mental conversion to get at functions, it just make makes it slightly easier than with four letters.
No, it gives the same information (sans extrovert bias). The mental conversion is much easier, not slightly. You're just clearly familiar with it so it doesn't bother you anymore. (If you want we can keep the redundant E-biased J/P, so INTP = ITN-P, and so on.)
Even without explaining the theory at all, simply as a cognitive algebraic/pattern puzzle, its much easier to understand what's going on in the notation I propose. It would be nice if we could get a group of people to make an experiment to see which code gets people to learn and understand the functions faster and settle this argument. Give them a partial list of type codes and their equivalent dom-aux function breakdown and ask them to complete it and you'll see.
Fair point. But the associations you rail against are not without validity. Only the crude narrowing and exaggeration of J/P-related qualities poses serious difficulty. But that's little different to the treatment of the other three letters.
For the use of the layman, the four MBTI dichotomies are more than good enough (all the more so since it requires no mental gymnastics to get at the 16 types, whereas any three-letter code inevitably would).
Emphasizing the dom and aux requires much less mental gymnastics than the J/P E/I mess.
Laymen should be encouraged to learn more through accessible but coherent and powerful notation. Unnecessary obtuseness is one of my pet peeves.
Anyway, I don't think there's anything left for me to say on this matter, we'll just keep disagreeing so I'll rest my case here. The notation has become entrenched for decades and it's unlikely to change, despite its evident flaws.
The J/P dichotomy is useful because it encodes fundamental differences between Ji and Je, Pi and Pe. 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. 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.
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?
I see a lot of what should INTP like, be good at, etc.
I think typology has its limits. Specifically for MBTI it has a use in determining where someone is psychologically in a window of time. Say take the test at a job interview or before a promotion. If you're feeling up to managing or you want seclusion it will come through on a MBTI.
I say this because we humans are malleable in nature. Some aspects of our personalities appear to be hard as a rock because they are pronounced in our daily choices. Our choices decide where we will be tomorrow. So obviously a strong, pronounced personality trait is going to stick around for awhile because it is an anchor into our future. For example if being in seclusion has awarded me great success in life then tomorrow I'm going to be geared towards seclusion. If it stopped being so rewarding I may break from it but it takes a long time to tear down these reinforcements.
Our malleability declines as we get older because the world just stops impressing us. We've found a niche that we can float on for the remainder of our days and that's that. So beyond say, 35 MBTI probably doesn't change much. But from 10 to 35 it probably changes at least twice.
I think it's obvious that MBTI has meaning to a lot of people. Many people can resonate with MBTI's descriptions and it can lead into a better general understanding of one's self, or at least a fulfilling substantiation of one's self-image. But this doesn't mean it is an accurate indicator of the cognitive functions. This, I think, is a separate question from its meaning/usefulness to the individual.
The main problem with MBTI is that it relies on self-assessment. The issue with self-assessment is that the majority of people don't have an objective eye on their personality. The ego functions as such that we will respond to questions of ourselves with our own subjective perception of who we are. Often, we may even answer with what we'd like to believe of ourselves. I think it's common, for example, for people to like to think of themselves as 'rational' or 'thinkers'. Others might like to think of themselves as 'empathetic' or 'feeling' or 'open-minded' or 'intuitive'. Concepts such as these are attractive descriptors, and so many people resonate with the 'NF' or 'NT' definitions of MBTI.
But the reality of how one responds to the world can be a very different thing than how they think they respond or how they'd like to. The affinities of the ego are general psychological attitudes which may or may not actually manifest in one's functionality, and which exist as a different phenomenon from the functions. This is something MBTI doesn't seem to take into account at all in its assessments. A function is more about methodology of processing than it is about the specific thoughts, feelings or attitudes one has. And so, questions geared toward how one thinks may be more fruitful in ascertaining the functions than what one's subjective preferences are.
A further complication with self-assessment is that it is easily skewed by different modalities of the psyche, such as mental illness. The depressed extrovert, for example, may well test out as being introverted with MBTI's assessments since depression lends one toward isolation, rumination and a lack of enjoyment in engagement with the world.
In addition to using a faulty method, MBTI is based upon a theory which was derived via observation of atypical individuals (i.e. Jung's mentally ill patients) and which described theoretical archetypes of the functions rather than the typical manifestation of them in a real individual.
As Jung wrote:
When you speak of the extrovert and the feeling of an “identité mystique,” then naturally many things I said about the extrovert do not apply.
What I was actually talking about was the “ideally oriented” extrovert, and by “ideal” I do not mean “ideal” in the sense it is used in expressions such as “ideal aspirations” and “ideal convictions,” but “ideal” in the sense of “corresponding to one’s principle.”
Here the term “ideal” also implies that the ideal type is an imaginary or abstracted type that does not exist in reality, because a real person naturally also has the other mechanism within himself, with the help of which he can take the edge off what is all-too sharp in the “ideal.”
The more “ideal” a case is the more pathological it is.
You are perfectly right, therefore, in assuming that I am speaking mainly of “coarse” or “pathological” persons, among whom the “ideally oriented” can be found.
~ Carl Jung, Hans Schmid Guisan Letters, Pages 100-114
And so, despite the 'sliding scale' compensation devised by Myers and Briggs, the original concept of the function attitudes was too extreme to begin with, and so extrapolation of behaviors from these concepts lead to inaccurate descriptions of the types. This can especially be seen in descriptions of 'Sensors' which portray them as human beings largely lacking imagination, etc.
@Auburn actually describes the outcome of this literal extrapolation of Jung's theory quite eloquently in what he wrote:
A type can manifest the behaviors expected by their four-letter-code designation when their development is infantile. But because of this, the correlation between these two systems can only accurately type those with one-sided development. The MBTI, by its simplification of the functions to behavioral polarities can only differentiate people whose development is so outwardly unambiguous that the sheer over reliance on certain processes makes the type evident.
In addition to using a faulty method, MBTI is based upon a theory which was derived via observation of atypical individuals (i.e. Jung's mentally ill patients) and which described theoretical archetypes of the functions rather than the typical manifestation of them in a real individual.
Here's what Jung said in the Foreword to the First Swiss Edition of Psychological Types:
This book is the fruit of nearly twenty years' work in the domain of practical psychology. It grew gradually in my thoughts, taking shape from the countless impressions and experiences of a psychiatrist in the treatment of nervous illnesses, from intercourse with men and women of all social levels, from my personal dealings with friend and foe alike, and, finally, from a critique of my own psychological peculiarity.
In Jung's autobiography (Memories, Dreams, Reflections), he explained that his typology "sprang originally from my need to define the ways in which my outlook differed from Freud's and Adler's. In attempting to answer this question, I came across the problem of types; for it is one's psychological type which from the outset determines and limits a person's judgment. My book, therefore, was an effort to deal with the relationship of the individual to the world, to people and things."
Jung didn't think Freud and Adler were "mentally ill," and anyone who's read Psychological Types with any care knows that the book is full of passages where Jung describes personality characteristics that he considers typical of people of the relevant types. As just one example, each of the type portraits in Chapter 10 makes distinctions between what the relevant type tends to be like in a more normal condition and the more "neurotic" characteristics that tend to manifest if and when the type becomes overly one-sided.
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.
Is there a reason you didn't identify the year of that letter for the benefit of your readers?
As a final note: although both spellings of "extraversion" can be found in the dictionary, Jung coined the term, and he spelled it with an "a" — and rightly referred to later "o" spellings as "bad latin." Isabel Myers also spelled it with an "a," and it's spelled with an "a" in all the most well-known MBTI sources, in virtually all the leading Big Five sources, and in most other academic-psychology sources.
Anybody's free to be a special snowflake if they want, of course, but it seems to me that there's at least some advantage to having a consistency of spelling for the main terms (at least) involved in a respectable field of study — particularly in the context of journals (and forums) devoted to discussions of that field.
In any case, and more specifically, the word is spelled "extravert" in the book that your quote comes from. Did you alter the spelling in that quote, and if so, why?
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?
I don't mean to be rude (well, maybe a little bit), but you should read up on Demarcation Problem and Karl Popper's solution to it. Because, the fact that you are posing that question while simultaneously claiming MBTI is scientific, is a complete self-contradiction. If the MBTI were scientific, then it would include a method of falsifying itself in these scenarios. At best, the fact that it doesn't hold in these cases falsifies the theory and we know it's wrong, but more likely, someone will find a new explanation or interpretation to fit observations to the theory, which just shows that it is pseudoscience in line with Astrology.
So, falsifiable? Yes. And before anybody gets anal on me, with psychology you can't have strict falsifiability where one examples kills the idea. You have to take a statistical approach, which is why he uses the word "may". So this is falsifiable by testing a population, and yes its apparent that it would very likely turn out to be true.
Second, 'not apparent from observation'. Well that's not such a good measure you have. For example, you could say that General Relativity couldn't have been a theory, because it's predictions were apparent from observation. Michelson Morley certainly, and stellar deflection which was used to prove his theory, but could equally have been an observation to explain (if anybody had looked).
What you're getting at here is what the Big Five is, which is simply an statistical observation from population studies. Certainly nobody sat down and came up with the big five, it was pure observationally derived, which is why it isn't a theory.
I attempted to give a different angle on it, with examples, but I'm getting blue in the face explaining this over and over again. Honestly I'm not sure you really grasp the nature of a predicative theory? Not trying to pick on you but if this doesn't help than I don't know what will.
Reminds me in reverse of my relationship with Engineers. They hold Physics up as sacrosanct, they love to say things like "well that's physics" - meaning you can't argue with it. Written in holy writ, in stone. As an ex physicist I know the things aren't so clear cut as they make out.
Likewise here, the difference between a predicative and non predicative theory is is usually clear if you're experienced in these things, yet we know you can't get too anal about it (e.g., GR, SR, QM all have their limits too)
I don't know what we define as "experienced" but it's certainly my job to create predicative, statistical models. It is very easy for me to see when I make a purely statistical model, because I don't make any claims whatsoever about the generator of the observed phenomena. I just make statistical hypotheses about visible events as they manifest themselves in the physical world.
That can be said about the 'scientific' parts of MBTI – when someone tests as an INTP or whatever, you have a certain statistical model of that person's behaviour. That is true, and that is indeed how it is similar to Big 5. But the conjectures about the underlying processes of the human psyche, with stuff like "inwardly oriented energy" etc, they have nothing to do with statistics or falsifiable claims.
I don't mean to be rude (well, maybe a little bit), but you should read up on Demarcation Problem and Karl Popper's solution to it. Because, the fact that you are posing that question while simultaneously claiming MBTI is scientific, is a complete self-contradiction. If the MBTI were scientific, then it would include a method of falsifying itself in these scenarios. At best, the fact that it doesn't hold in these cases falsifies the theory and we know it's wrong, but more likely, someone will find a new explanation or interpretation to fit observations to the theory, which just shows that it is pseudoscience in line with Astrology.
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.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
And the inferior function Fe which is also hugely visible is judging too! FFS... Which leads to the all too often mental circlejerk of coming up with ideas or fears that have no basis in any perceived reality... Ultimately the INTP lives to JUDGE (internally), and perceiving is secondary, which is why everyone here is a judgmental dick (in the silent, smug, contemptuous way of Ti) just like INTJs are judgmental jerkasses (in the in-your face, blunt asshole way of Te).
) 