Why MBTI is bullshit pseudoscience.

[ZenRaiden]

So anyway I have been doing research on the internet and this is what I learned about MBTI.
There are only 16 types, but how can there be only 16 types, is it not to few, I mean we are all special snowflakes aren't we why pigeonhole someone.

MBTI is just statistics, so its by default not true. And it was done by women who had no degrees. Can you believe the audacity of these bitches?

Its not based on Jungs work. Jungs original said something different, so they are not holding true to the original sources, so this mean they have wrong data. Science does not change facts. Jung was fact, MBTI is make believe.

Types have only positive attributes.
I mean for real? What about negative personality traits! You cannot have that.

MBTI is subject to barum effect which is basically on par with horoscopes and astrology.
Who in their right mind would believe an arbitrary constellation of stars made in 3000 BC could have impact on your life depending on date and place of birth?

Types change all the time on retesting and the questions are vague and imprecise.
I mean personality does not change does it?
Also we know that dichotomies are flawed. We all have feelings and think. How can you say someone only thinks and only feels.
How can you say someone is only introvert and only extrovert.

BIG FIVE! I mean big five is real. Though its not based on anything, but statistics.
It also has pretty flimsy retest quality, and the questions are also pretty vague, but that is not the point!
BIG FIVE was made by MEN and self made academics with statistical accuracy!
Its also not used by corporations with ulterior motives with tentative grasp on reality.

 

[Puffy]

I don't think realistically any of the remaining members here advocate for MBTI anymore. At least none of the long-term members here I can think of. So I expect a lot of your core criticisms will get nods from a lot of people here.

As an aside, why does it matter if Big Five was developed by men and MBTI by women? I can't tell if you're just trolling. XD

 

[ZenRaiden]

As an aside, why does it matter if Big Five was developed by men and MBTI by women? I can't tell if you're just trolling. XD

Well these are the points of criticism widely accepted by anti MBTI people, so.

 

[BurnedOut]

hahahahahahahaha.

 

[ZenRaiden]

hahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I got this from Vox.

 

[Daddy]

I know right! Let's all go to the astrology forum and talk about our charts. I'm an eight-legged warpig.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Do you ever talk to yourself guys?

 

[ZenRaiden]

 

[ZenRaiden]

 

[Hadoblado]

In defense of statistics:
Just gonna have to come in here and say that something based on a valid interpretation of robust statistics is more "real" than most things people assume are real. As in it's more likely to be true.

The numbers don't come from nowhere. Each "1" on the page corresponds to a real-life event.

Statistics can lie when someone is trying to make them lie. But something being based on a strong statistical foundation is extremely valuable. Big 5 is good because it is based on statistics. MBTI is criticised because it is not (its statistical backing is weaker).

Statistics are like the sensory organ we use for patterns larger than our livable experience. Without them, a psychologist is fumbling around in the dark.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What if I told you MBTI and Big FIve measure the same thing.
Do you see my point of statistics?
Statistics can be stronger, yet, they can still be hardcore bullshit.

Patterns are everywhere and putting them in statistics is like everything else.
Obviously more data means more data points in the statistics, less likely to be wrong, but since this is psychology we aren't talking about marbles.

IQ is good example how statistics can be both true, and yet lacking in reality.
IQ does not give us extra ordinary insight into human cognitive abilities when it comes to learning.
It measures something, and it does it well, that something is real, and the tests that measure it are very accurate.
But that does not tell us anything about human intelligence outside of IQ.
Which is the problem.
Same way comparing MBTI and BigFive is like comparing and image of data.
One can be sharper and the other not so sharp, yet saying one is more better than other does not necessarily mean one is less valid.
MBTI might not be valid comparably to models psychology seeks to confirm its own theory, or Big Five.

Even better example is statistics that measure freedom of a country.
Even if you measure such entity can you really plot all the important data into this and say someone is more free in one nation than in other nation?

What if freedom was measured by the amount of time people spend standing in lines for food?
Or measured by how many different candy bars you can buy?
Or how many hours you can spend doing something non job related.
Or how many options you have in terms of entertainment.
Or how many laws take away your freedom vs how many laws prevent you from taking freedom from others etc.

You can certainly use statistical models and predictive models, especially when you have a certain objective criteria, which to begin with are predictable.
But what is predictable in human life really?

 

[ZenRaiden]

For example do neurotics respond same way to every situation?
Do extroverts always socialize?
Do openminded people always consider everything?
Do conscientious people always stick to tasks?

 

[Daddy]

Hado the stats.
Zen the D.
Puffy to please.
And BurnedOut to laugh.

 

[Hadoblado]

Zenraiden

Your criticism does not address the validity of these things, only the limitations. It's like you're saying apples are bad because they don't make good bananas. The apple is not supposed to be the banana.

For example, no psychologist thinks that IQ is all of intelligence. Insecure people on the internet might, but that's not the fault of statistics. Statistics can be misused, and some questions are harder to answer than others with numbers. "Freedom" is a difficult topic, but it's difficult for everyone regardless of whether they use statistics.

You are right that humans are extremely unpredictable. But there isn't a better universal tool than statistics for predicting them.

 

[PiedPiper]

Much of psychology is randomized. How much can be relied upon to give us an accurate representation of every human mind. In this chaos we reside in the only sure thing is unpredictability, but humans hate that, and so we are left with these 100 question tests to give us some sort of stability in this shithole. The fact is, you can't account for every action someone has performed, every thought, every whim. You just can't do it, all you can do is take some of the bigger factors like biology and social life and try and add it up to a person. Fuck you society.

Things like school, family beliefs, dogma, other people, fears. It adds a lot of randomness in a world already full of opinion. It's a wonder we've even managed to stay alive this far as a species. Humans are pretty unbalanced compared to the rest of the kingdom. You've got a natural order in nature, sort of recalibrates itself, and then you've got humans who have detached from nature. Which isnt entirely bad, its just damaging when you go too far. They have become machines. Automated systems just scrambling about trying to survive with no real purpose. It's incredibly depressing. The effort they put into making it could be better spent working for a life of meaning. To each his own.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Zenraiden

Your criticism does not address the validity of these things, only the limitations. It's like you're saying apples are bad because they don't make good bananas. The apple is not supposed to be the banana.

For example, no psychologist thinks that IQ is all of intelligence. Insecure people on the internet might, but that's not the fault of statistics. Statistics can be misused, and some questions are harder to answer than others with numbers. "Freedom" is a difficult topic, but it's difficult for everyone regardless of whether they use statistics.

You are right that humans are extremely unpredictable. But there isn't a better universal tool than statistics for predicting them.

Yeah, you miss the point, but I guess that goes by default.
Never mind.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Much of psychology is randomized. How much can be relied upon to give us an accurate representation of every human mind. In this chaos we reside in the only sure thing is unpredictability, but humans hate that, and so we are left with these 100 question tests to give us some sort of stability in this shithole. The fact is, you can't account for every action someone has performed, every thought, every whim. You just can't do it, all you can do is take some of the bigger factors like biology and social life and try and add it up to a person. Fuck you society.

Things like school, family beliefs, dogma, other people, fears. It adds a lot of randomness in a world already full of opinion. It's a wonder we've even managed to stay alive this far as a species. Humans are pretty unbalanced compared to the rest of the kingdom. You've got a natural order in nature, sort of recalibrates itself, and then you've got humans who have detached from nature. Which isnt entirely bad, its just damaging when you go too far. They have become machines. Automated systems just scrambling about trying to survive with no real purpose. It's incredibly depressing. The effort they put into making it could be better spent working for a life of meaning. To each his own.

Yeah OK, this all nice, but we are talking about personality and attached metric to it.
My point is better done statistics don't have zilch to do with what you measure and its validity to personality.
As I made the point IQ is not equal to intelligence.
Despite it being the best measure of it.
That is my easiest way to explain why big five is not that good.
Anyway, MBTI has bias too.
But the problem you touched upon Instrident is that society is something more than mere nature.
Its operating on terms that natural life does not have.
Anyway MBTI concerns it self with stuff like job satisfaction which was main aim to fit people into careers.
Interestingly this goes with some culture bias and modern take on what constitutes job.
We know MBTI is old so jobs in MBTI terms are not what we have today.
What might have been good fit for MBTI for INTP when it was made and today is different question.

However the insights in MBTI are based on variety of criteria.
For example Big FIve consists of things that are more closer to human biology and not culture.
MBTI also looks at relationship stuff, that even Jung used to address patient problems.
Now I don't know how you might help someone with BigFive other than telling them they are neurotic.
I mean there sure are other data on this dimension that psychologist gather.
It does not mean it creates a coherent or relatable picture, probably because its not.

Your main problem here is if measuring something no matter how well is actually measuring the thing you want.

For example measuring IQ is good for many things, but it has limited use.
Its fairly good thing to measure in some ways, but from what I gathered unless it goes in some significant way in either direction its usually a meaningless number.
That being said if measure personality you are looking at something that is built around certain common variables.

 

[Hadoblado]

Zenraiden

Your criticism does not address the validity of these things, only the limitations. It's like you're saying apples are bad because they don't make good bananas. The apple is not supposed to be the banana.

For example, no psychologist thinks that IQ is all of intelligence. Insecure people on the internet might, but that's not the fault of statistics. Statistics can be misused, and some questions are harder to answer than others with numbers. "Freedom" is a difficult topic, but it's difficult for everyone regardless of whether they use statistics.

You are right that humans are extremely unpredictable. But there isn't a better universal tool than statistics for predicting them.

Yeah, you miss the point, but I guess that goes by default.
Never mind.

Mmmm okay. You know that when I state stuff like this you're free to correct right?

I'm responding to:

MBTI is just statistics, so its by default not true.

You then talk about how statistics can be wrong or misused, and the questions they seek to answer can be difficult to reduce to numbers.

What am I supposed to be taking away from this?

If you're over it that's fine. Or if it's obvious that I've missed something someone else can point it out to me.

 

[PiedPiper]

Much of psychology is randomized. How much can be relied upon to give us an accurate representation of every human mind. In this chaos we reside in the only sure thing is unpredictability, but humans hate that, and so we are left with these 100 question tests to give us some sort of stability in this shithole. The fact is, you can't account for every action someone has performed, every thought, every whim. You just can't do it, all you can do is take some of the bigger factors like biology and social life and try and add it up to a person. Fuck you society.

Things like school, family beliefs, dogma, other people, fears. It adds a lot of randomness in a world already full of opinion. It's a wonder we've even managed to stay alive this far as a species. Humans are pretty unbalanced compared to the rest of the kingdom. You've got a natural order in nature, sort of recalibrates itself, and then you've got humans who have detached from nature. Which isnt entirely bad, its just damaging when you go too far. They have become machines. Automated systems just scrambling about trying to survive with no real purpose. It's incredibly depressing. The effort they put into making it could be better spent working for a life of meaning. To each his own.

Yeah OK, this all nice, but we are talking about personality and attached metric to it.
My point is better done statistics don't have zilch to do with what you measure and its validity to personality.
As I made the point IQ is not equal to intelligence.
Despite it being the best measure of it.
That is my easiest way to explain why big five is not that good.
Anyway, MBTI has bias too.
But the problem you touched upon Instrident is that society is something more than mere nature.
Its operating on terms that natural life does not have.
Anyway MBTI concerns it self with stuff like job satisfaction which was main aim to fit people into careers.
Interestingly this goes with some culture bias and modern take on what constitutes job.
We know MBTI is old so jobs in MBTI terms are not what we have today.
What might have been good fit for MBTI for INTP when it was made and today is different question.

However the insights in MBTI are based on variety of criteria.
For example Big FIve consists of things that are more closer to human biology and not culture.
MBTI also looks at relationship stuff, that even Jung used to address patient problems.
Now I don't know how you might help someone with BigFive other than telling them they are neurotic.
I mean there sure are other data on this dimension that psychologist gather.
It does not mean it creates a coherent or relatable picture, probably because its not.

Your main problem here is if measuring something no matter how well is actually measuring the thing you want.

You're using jarred terms and picking here and there to try and get the little straws here and there and build a hayloft. There's plenty of tests out there that can generalize an abstract 'idea' of someone's main personality core. One test alone isnt going to cut it, it only assists in the personification process. There was always an intention with each of these tests. Whether or not its entirely accurate is of course up for debate. I'm not against astrology, or signs necessarily. There is a certain wisdom in many types of history, even though that stone age was filled with uncertainty. It builds upon each foundation. Another individual may call it piffle nonsense, then turn to scientifical jargon, and mesh that ideal into their philosophy. MBTI offers an albeit older version of this process, and may indeed, and will likely improve with time, if not be completely overwritten. Admittedly i'm not uncommonly familiar with the BigFive, because I prefer to identify my personality through life experience, not a test. I am however 'classified' as an INTP, in that regard. Which essentially means i'm just a deep thinker. I didn't really need a test to figure that out. If you're diving this deep into psychology, why not get a gene test? With you, @Raiden, I almost get the vibe you must contradict things against each other, but then end up confusing yourself in the contradiction and go into a frenzy. You sure its not that INTP coming out?

 

[Puffy]

Hado the stats.
Zen the D.
Puffy to please.
And BurnedOut to laugh.

You know me so well.

 

[BurnedOut]

Statistics can lie when someone is trying to make them lie. But something being based on a strong statistical foundation is extremely valuable. Big 5 is good because it is based on statistics. MBTI is criticised because it is not (its statistical backing is weaker).

Statistics is the least of MBTI's problems. Talk about more fundamentals such as functioning ordering and definition of functions which does not even have any common sense in it. It is said that nothing in psychology can surprise you because humans have always, in some manner, analyzed the human mind. But MBTI pervades this notion and joins the league of astrology whilst straddling for a legitimate usage in psychology. It is as if astrologers have started demanding for funding and opening of state universities to scientifically study its unscientific precepts. Add science with hogwash and you get the algorithms used in YouTube and Facebook. MBTI deserves all the disrespect because it is the only pseudoscience which has researches published in the field of science in general (Imagine psychics making a real scientific effort to show that psychics are neurologically extraordinary). No horoscopic poppycock demands acceptance from science except MBTI.

Proponents of MBTI - I think you guys are stuck in denial despite conspicuously exalting the merits of an INTP being rational. I think that MBTI is a good tool to measure's someone's gullibility. Other than that, it is worth all the insults and disparaging in the world.

Nothing cloys me more than the fact that this cancer of an MBTI wasted so much of my time. I spent years attempting to demystify the workings of the functions and it led me to absolutely nowhere. It did not help me with understanding emotions at all. On top of that, I don't know the number of things I have read online - all those platitudes that made me feel good. I only realized at the end that MBTI is nothing better than an addiction. Even the ones who say, 'MBTI may be crap at the end but it is a gateway to psychology.' You know someone is going to interpret field of psychology all wrong for a long time when their point of entry is personality - the most nebulous, debated and misused concept in psychology. MBTI proponents will continue to see the study of psychology as a study of colors - given wavelengths, you can figure them out. Sadly, personality is probably the last thing any person should read if they are interested in psychology. And psychology without the knowledge of history or sociology or anthropology or politics is like getting diabetes after eating too many cupcakes. Engaging in intellectual vanity leads to delusional thinking for psychology is too sweet as a subject - it is probably thought of one of the most interesting subjects by tweens who want to be a third-rate Sherlock. Those inflicted find it difficult to shake off their wrongly trained intuitions in the name of studying merely psychological theories.

I think the psychology kids were probably the most annoying sounding lot among other subjects. They throw around these fancy words with grandiloquence that makes you feel like psychology has defeated mathematics in the fabric of reality. They do not understand politics nor the progress of human civilization which is the biggest irony given how practical application of psychology has been most enduring in the field of group behaviour given how the study of group behaviours is as old as humankind itself. And god forbid if you ever meet an MBTI fan. They will utter lots of 'blurbs' without really understanding the context just to sound utterly cool. Now I feel utterly guilty for eating the heads of countless innocent souls in my journey to understand MBTI. Probably a person who understands that MBTI is as good as flatulence is probably someone who is not influenciable given how they were able to detoxify the MBTIanoid receptors in the brain. One joint of an article and you will be stoned on platitudes.It is a lengthy and arduous journey. MBTI addiction is real...We all have experienced it...

 

[scorpiomover]

So anyway I have been doing research on the internet and this is what I learned about MBTI.
There are only 16 types, but how can there be only 16 types, is it not to few,

4 binary distinctions makes for 2^4 = 16.

If you want to add more binary distinctions or sub-categories, that's up to you. It might help you. It might not.

I mean we are all special snowflakes aren't we why pigeonhole someone.

If you don't want to type anyone, then you don't want to talk about personality theories. So why not be on a site for special snowflakes, where everyone is unique and different to everyone else?

People who like MBTI like categories. Categories like blood types can be useful.

MBTI is just statistics, so its by default not true.

So then every statistic is by default not true? Even the ones that say that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C? Scientific papers use stats. Are all of those not true as well?

And it was done by women who had no degrees. Can you believe the audacity of these bitches?

How dare they? Whatever are these women going to do next? Have babies and give life?

Its not based on Jungs work. Jungs original said something different, so they are not holding true to the original sources, so this mean they have wrong data.

There's a question of how much they overlap. But they clearly have a lot of similarity.

Science does not change facts.

Einstein's theory changed gravity from a force into spatial curvature.

Jung was fact, MBTI is make believe.

Types have only positive attributes.
I mean for real? What about negative personality traits! You cannot have that.

Why can't you have traits that have positive and negative effects. Tyson's boxing ability made him a fighter in the ring, and a fighter in the bedroom. It made him rich, and sent him to prison.

I think you mean that the people who write MBTI profiles only use positive attributes.

Maybe they ascribe to American attitudes that you should always be positive about yourself?

MBTI is subject to barum effect which is basically on par with horoscopes and astrology.

People are subject to the Barnum effect.

Who in their right mind would believe an arbitrary constellation of stars made in 3000 BC could have impact on your life depending on date and place of birth?

Every time I ring the doctor, they always ask for my birth date.

Types change all the time on retesting and the questions are vague and imprecise.
I mean personality does not change does it?

Pesonality is not supposed to change all that much, which means those tests are not great at accurately diagnosing personality traits.

Also we know that dichotomies are flawed. We all have feelings and think. How can you say someone only thinks and only feels.
How can you say someone is only introvert and only extrovert.

Someone who only sees introvert and extrovert as black or white, is bound to see a world of introverts and extroverts as lacking colour.

BIG FIVE! I mean big five is real. Though its not based on anything, but statistics.
It also has pretty flimsy retest quality, and the questions are also pretty vague, but that is not the point!
BIG FIVE was made by MEN and self made academics with statistical accuracy!

Yay for science? Do I get a bonus because I'm part of humans and humans did science?

Its also not used by corporations with ulterior motives with tentative grasp on reality.

Are you sure?

The Top 5 Personality Tests in Business — Which One Should Your Company Use?

Personality tests are often used both to improve workplace synergy and to find the right candidate for open roles. See use cases and benefits of the five most popular assessments.

seniorexecutive.com

 

[ZenRaiden]

Good so we agree.

 

[Daddy]

So meeting concluded? I can go back to work now?

 

[Hadoblado]

Statistics can lie when someone is trying to make them lie. But something being based on a strong statistical foundation is extremely valuable. Big 5 is good because it is based on statistics. MBTI is criticised because it is not (its statistical backing is weaker).

Statistics is the least of MBTI's problems. Talk about more fundamentals such as functioning ordering and definition of functions which does not even have any common sense in it. It is said that nothing in psychology can surprise you because humans have always, in some manner, analyzed the human mind. But MBTI pervades this notion and joins the league of astrology whilst straddling for a legitimate usage in psychology. It is as if astrologers have started demanding for funding and opening of state universities to scientifically study its unscientific precepts. Add science with hogwash and you get the algorithms used in YouTube and Facebook. MBTI deserves all the disrespect because it is the only pseudoscience which has researches published in the field of science in general (Imagine psychics making a real scientific effort to show that psychics are neurologically extraordinary). No horoscopic poppycock demands acceptance from science except MBTI.

Proponents of MBTI - I think you guys are stuck in denial despite conspicuously exalting the merits of an INTP being rational. I think that MBTI is a good tool to measure's someone's gullibility. Other than that, it is worth all the insults and disparaging in the world.

Nothing cloys me more than the fact that this cancer of an MBTI wasted so much of my time. I spent years attempting to demystify the workings of the functions and it led me to absolutely nowhere. It did not help me with understanding emotions at all. On top of that, I don't know the number of things I have read online - all those platitudes that made me feel good. I only realized at the end that MBTI is nothing better than an addiction. Even the ones who say, 'MBTI may be crap at the end but it is a gateway to psychology.' You know someone is going to interpret field of psychology all wrong for a long time when their point of entry is personality - the most nebulous, debated and misused concept in psychology. MBTI proponents will continue to see the study of psychology as a study of colors - given wavelengths, you can figure them out. Sadly, personality is probably the last thing any person should read if they are interested in psychology. And psychology without the knowledge of history or sociology or anthropology or politics is like getting diabetes after eating too many cupcakes. Engaging in intellectual vanity leads to delusional thinking for psychology is too sweet as a subject - it is probably thought of one of the most interesting subjects by tweens who want to be a third-rate Sherlock. Those inflicted find it difficult to shake off their wrongly trained intuitions in the name of studying merely psychological theories.

I think the psychology kids were probably the most annoying sounding lot among other subjects. They throw around these fancy words with grandiloquence that makes you feel like psychology has defeated mathematics in the fabric of reality. They do not understand politics nor the progress of human civilization which is the biggest irony given how practical application of psychology has been most enduring in the field of group behaviour given how the study of group behaviours is as old as humankind itself. And god forbid if you ever meet an MBTI fan. They will utter lots of 'blurbs' without really understanding the context just to sound utterly cool. Now I feel utterly guilty for eating the heads of countless innocent souls in my journey to understand MBTI. Probably a person who understands that MBTI is as good as flatulence is probably someone who is not influenciable given how they were able to detoxify the MBTIanoid receptors in the brain. One joint of an article and you will be stoned on platitudes.It is a lengthy and arduous journey. MBTI addiction is real...We all have experienced it...

Do you speak like this in meatspace? So dramatic XD

 

[EndogenousRebel]

So is this why that one scientism thread started?

Isn't context everything? Like IQ most personality tests now have sub traits that make up the main functional representation. Functionallity being the key word here. Or utility if you're not obnoxious.

If anything the composite scores are useless as they only serve to summarize, while of course these abstract concepts might have no business being associated because nothing tethers them to each other nor to something concrete in reality. Well obviously anyways. Not until we put microchips in every and track the whole behavioral matrix of the human genome

But I do see the what Habaldo is saying, though it's basically explained away in 10 different ways via behavioral/social conditioning and things of that nature.

Go to a party of 100 random people and watch them all act a slightly different way. Sounds totally doable.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So is this why that one scientism thread started?

Isn't context everything? Like IQ most personality tests now have sub traits that make up the main functional representation. Functionallity being the key word here. Or utility if you're not obnoxious.

If anything the composite scores are useless as they only serve to summarize, while of course these abstract concepts might have no business being associated because nothing tethers them to each other nor to something concrete in reality. Well obviously anyways. Not until we put microchips in every and track the whole behavioral matrix of the human genome

But I do see the what Habaldo is saying, though it's basically explained away in 10 different ways via behavioral/social conditioning and things of that nature.

Go to a party of 100 random people and watch them all act a slightly different way. Sounds totally doable.

It depends what is the objective of the typology and what is the objective of person.
If we all eat soup we are all probably more or less going to eat it the same way.
No one is going to bring a straw unless they have a busted mouth from an accident.

So what constitutes a personality really?
Extroverts and introverts are present in both MBTI and Big Five.

Which already means these two theories agree on something and agree with Jung.

So when people say MBTI is bullshit its like do you even know what it is?

Even the way the questions are constituted might be wrong in both cases.
Because the question appear to be reasonable and yet vague enough to give space for personality to show.
But then you have age, and experience in combination with culture.
Big Five is looking for traits across all population.
MBTI is more culture specific.
Reliable I guess in times it was made with cultural bias least visible then, more visible now.
We deal with different problems today.
Then you have things like gender.
For example in schools young girls on average out perform boys.
We know this is not so in real life.
So even between gender there is a personality component of some sort.

Some argue girls, are more mature faster, and they also tend to better control emotion sooner, and tend to have better trend at sticking to rules, prefer to be liked and so on.
So how come at some point boys just pick up and do better.
Then we also know that some boys tend to go in the negative more and tend to do abysmal in school more likely than girls.

That too could be personality consideration.

We also have a variety of ways using personal typology, but mostly its about how someone fits in a career.
Rarely do people invest into personality and think, ah and what about non career stuff, or general stuff overall.
If we look at the job market to day and the dimensions of performance today they are nothing like what they were 10 or 20 or 50 or any time before.
They are also fairly unique and spread out in many different unusual ways.

Extroversion today is very positively rated.
Especially in service oriented economies, where many jobs require sucking up or helping people depending how you look at it.
Either way extroverts are approachable, they have more practice and they like it a lot more.
Introverts on other hand are extreme opposite and while in the past both extroversion and introversion were fairly limited in how they show today you can have people who "read all the time" and people who "party" all the time.

 

[BurnedOut]

Do you speak like this in meatspace?

I sound like plato

 

[scorpiomover]

Statistics is the least of MBTI's problems. Talk about more fundamentals such as functioning ordering and definition of functions which does not even have any common sense in it.

#1stWorldProblems.

Wealthy people have the time to worry about things they think cannot help them.

Poor people just get on and find something more useful.

 

[Rook]

8 billion people cannot be described by 16 divisions of nature
neither by 2 (good/evil / left/right capitalist/communist) nor by the vastly oversimplified catch-all misnomenclature of asian/black/white/whateverelse, human groupings are far too diverse and intermixed for entire cultures and individual peoples to all be lumped into one big ass category cos of this or that aspect regarding their physical nature.

same with minds, personalities, individual human entities: the complexity and diversity is on such a gargantuan scale and of such a multi-layered nature that trying to quantify and class it within a single mortal lifetime is purest folly.

 

[scorpiomover]

Do you speak like this in meatspace? So dramatic XD

Meatspace. Ha. Do you call your children "meat popsickles"?

Go to a party of 100 random people and watch them all act a slightly different way. Sounds totally doable.

Hey, look. They're all slightly different to a random definition of humans that I read on the internet. Does that mean that "being human" is BS?

It depends what is the objective of the typology and what is the objective of person.

If we all eat soup we are all probably more or less going to eat it the same way.
No one is going to bring a straw unless they have a busted mouth from an accident.

Some people always bring a straw. Some people suck right from the bowl. Others use a spoon.

So what constitutes a personality really?
Extroverts and introverts are present in both MBTI and Big Five.
Which already means these two theories agree on something and agree with Jung.

Shush. Stop making sense.

Big Five is looking for traits across all population.

I doubt they're looking for traits that are as true for the Piraha as for Westerners.

Then you have things like gender.
For example in schools young girls on average out perform boys.

They didn't when I was in school.

Some argue girls, are more mature faster, and they also tend to better control emotion sooner, and tend to have better trend at sticking to rules, prefer to be liked and so on.

You should see the girls in UK nightclubs.

We also have a variety of ways using personal typology, but mostly its about how someone fits in a career.

NT are supposed to be a better fit with STEM. But there are plenty of ISTJs in IT programming and plenty of ESTPs in software sales.

Rarely do people invest into personality and think, ah and what about non career stuff, or general stuff overall.

Well, they do, like personality in dating, and how to communicate better with different personalities. But those views are as unclear and contradictory as personality typing in the workplace.

If we look at the job market to day and the dimensions of performance today they are nothing like what they were 10 or 20 or 50 or any time before.
They are also fairly unique and spread out in many different unusual ways.

They're not really hugely different to the 1980s, except now, the in-thing is writing blogs and being a social media influencer.

Extroversion today is very positively rated.
Especially in service oriented economies, where many jobs require sucking up or helping people depending how you look at it.

Well, it's always been part of service industries to deal with people.

However, these days, if you work in an office, you no longer have your own office where you would be expected to work mostly by yourself.

Today, you work in a cubicle, along with 20 to 30 other people in the same office. You will also be expected to talk to, and collaborate, with other people in other countries that you've never met.

So what has changed, is that the office workplace is also more extroverted.

Either way extroverts are approachable, they have more practice and they like it a lot more.

Yes. but they struggle when they have a job to do by themselves.

Introverts on other hand are extreme opposite and while in the past both extroversion and introversion were fairly limited in how they show today you can have people who "read all the time" and people who "party" all the time.

Yes. But the people who "read all the time", do so in their leisure time. The people who "party all the time" are either party planners and don't have time to party because they're too busy working, or they too are partying in their leisure time.

Our work has become extroverted. Our social life has become introverted.

As a result, it's difficult to be introverted or extroverted anymore, because your work that you must do, is too extroverted, and your social life, that you want to do, is not extroverted enough.

 

[BurnedOut]

People who like MBTI like categories. Categories like blood types can be useful.

Categorizing itself is a one of the most carefully treated aspects in science. Wrong categorization leads to disastrous theories that have invalid premises to begin with.

They can be useful but they are more often than not a big source of nuisance. Real categorization is more or less a universal truth. False categorization is what MBTI does. Humans took a very long time to objectively prove that animals have a theory of mind too. That delay happened because of the previously rigid notions of intelligence which was almost exclusively anthropogenic. Most of the biases in this world are again a result of false categorization - women are mentally and physically just as endowed as men are. In the case of physical endowment, they are on a equal footing in proportion to their body sizes. So many bad things happens because some birdhead's mistake of thinking a stereotype for a category.

 

[ZenRaiden]

birdhead's mistake of thinking a stereotype for a category.

Well do you actually know the difference then between this two terms?
I don't think you know the use of this words and meaning.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yes. but they struggle when they have a job to do by themselves.

That is not definition of extroversion.
That is definition of competence or motivation.
MBTI does not explain competence or motivation.
IQ does not either.
It also does not explain how men reach higher competence than women.
In all fields and professions, from education to fashion business to all industries and to politics to caregiving.
Yes even in caregiving men outperform women in many ways.
The other problem is that MBTI is personality IQ is intelligence.
Big FIve is a psychological typology more closer to neurology.
We also see a problem with categories like intuitive and perceiving.
Sensors are pragmatic, but pragmatic P and J are different people.
However NJ and NP categories are more related than SP and SJ in reality.
So if someone is P is very different from ESTP compared to INTJ.
NP is closer to INTJ than ESTP or ESTJ being closer to NJ.

We know this according to data provided by statistics.
We also know that women earn very little compared to men according to data.
Even in sports like chess females rank very low compared to males.
Most males are out-competed by males today in chess.

However you can have INTP and INTP male female.
Big Five also neglects gender.
Even if it is actually an important factor in reality.
So is personality actually

 

[ZenRaiden]

But if MBTI has to be good typology it has to avoid competence and motivation.
It has to be true in all cases even if the person right now has no motivation or competence their personality should not change.
However if it does change personality attributes have to be same.
We know P means options open.
J means seeking closure or judging making a decision and moving on.
Fairly common problem is also education.
Since education is not equal to competence like in previous times.
Today education only equals competence in limited sense, because what you learn may be outdated or plain and simple wrong, or opposite of reality.

 

[Daddy]

Sometimes I wonder if people here have a hard time just putting on pants. I imagine the process first starts with questioning whether the pants make the person or the person makes the pants, followed by then wondering how the pants exist, if they even exist at all, followed by wondering if the person putting on the pants is even real to begin with, and ending with the conclusion that nothing is real or nothing exists and therefore pants are bullshit. But it's just pants...and sometimes we need to cover our junk...

 

[ZenRaiden]

That is exactly what INTP would.

 

[BurnedOut]

ZenRaiden tripping on the dillusionment hard. It's like you are trying to explain why you think what you think but you end up writing down proses in angry spurts. Sure you don't want this thread locked for a while?

 

[Puffy]

Sometimes I wonder if people here have a hard time just putting on pants. I imagine the process first starts with questioning whether the pants make the person or the person makes the pants, followed by then wondering how the pants exist, if they even exist at all, followed by wondering if the person putting on the pants is even real to begin with, and ending with the conclusion that nothing is real or nothing exists and therefore pants are bullshit. But it's just pants...and sometimes we need to cover our junk...

But it feels so good to just let it hang, no?

 

[ZenRaiden]

ZenRaiden tripping on the dillusionment hard. It's like you are trying to explain why you think what you think but you end up writing down proses in angry spurts. Sure you don't want this thread locked for a while?

I am not angry?
Are you angry?
If you are angry please lock the thread.

I think this thread is more challenging than people understand, its certainly hard to explain my point, so yeah its frustrating.

Anyway T and P and T and J are very different, but if you take N and S and F and T you will notice that NF and SF are more closer to each other than say NT and SF vice versa NF and ST.

What is interesting that MBTI typology has pretty solid typology principals, so there is room for improvement.

I also think people are focusing often on the wrong benefits of MBTI which could possibly be the problem here.

See MBTI is personality thing, but its not some self development tool, so I see lots of threads about how someone is something, but often talking about it like its the thing that defines them.

I found it odd before, but I find you guys do it on this forum often too.

I think its a legit angle to look at INTP personality as part of what makes us who we are, but that only is partial picture of personality anyway mostly focused on how you approach situations in work and social life and so on.

SO I think lots of people who complain that MBTI is wrong are the type of people who know so little about MBTI that they misattribute its reason for existence.


Also Burn Out if you are the moderator why did you lie about not being able to ban me?
You have moderating privileges and yet you say "no ban".
Curious thing to lie about to say the least.
Humans gah....

 

[Daddy]

Sometimes I wonder if people here have a hard time just putting on pants. I imagine the process first starts with questioning whether the pants make the person or the person makes the pants, followed by then wondering how the pants exist, if they even exist at all, followed by wondering if the person putting on the pants is even real to begin with, and ending with the conclusion that nothing is real or nothing exists and therefore pants are bullshit. But it's just pants...and sometimes we need to cover our junk...

But it feels so good to just let it hang, no?

That's the dream, scratching my open crotch in public and shaking hands thereafter. Alas, the public requires pants.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I mean INTP is state of mind you understand?

 

[BurnedOut]

Also Burn Out if you are the moderator why did you lie about not being able to ban me?

Who made me the mod here? I am not a mod. Why would I ban you? I am just saying that everybody is finding your critique incoherent. You are criticizing MBTI - that's good man but then you are also writing some random stuff about NF and TP and yadayada which is sort of irrelevant to why MBTI is problematic. I personally did not understand head or tails of what you are trying to say. So I presumed that you are just venting out, that's fine but there are already 2 threads on criticism of MBTI which has a proper discussion so this one seems like a little extraneous. My purpose was not to offend you. I just felt that this thread is sort of getting you angry. Glad to know that that is not the case.

The latest spat about MBTI which was kind of the last stand on intpforum.com about its veracity reduced the metadiscussion of MBTI to a virtual meme. Everybody here is trolling you in some manner because you are already right and nobody is debating it. Are you sure you want to keep posting analyses and receive the kind of responses that you don't want?

 

[Hadoblado]

You were talking about becoming a mod the other day, and then it sounded like you were offering to lock the thread. I came to the same assumption as ZR.

 

[BurnedOut]

You were talking about becoming a mod the other day, and then it sounded like you were offering to lock the thread.

Huh, I was asking other mods to lock the thread as I know some mods do lurk around in active threads

 

[Hadoblado]

8 billion people cannot be described by 16 divisions of nature
neither by 2 (good/evil / left/right capitalist/communist) nor by the vastly oversimplified catch-all misnomenclature of asian/black/white/whateverelse, human groupings are far too diverse and intermixed for entire cultures and individual peoples to all be lumped into one big ass category cos of this or that aspect regarding their physical nature.

same with minds, personalities, individual human entities: the complexity and diversity is on such a gargantuan scale and of such a multi-layered nature that trying to quantify and class it within a single mortal lifetime is purest folly.

I both agree and disagree.

They can be categorised, it just won't necessarily be a useful categorisation. You could keep on adding more letters to reach a more precise grouping, but then it wouldn't accessible.

There was a big paper a few years ago using big 5. They found "types" using factor analysis, but were only able to come up with four, and it only described a small portion of the population. Most of the population could not be categorised by the most evidenced personality model (they still had personality attributes, but it wasn't a pronounced grouping).

 

[Hadoblado]

You were talking about becoming a mod the other day, and then it sounded like you were offering to lock the thread.

Huh, I was asking other mods to lock the thread as I know some mods do lurk around in active threads

There are no other mods. Just ex-mods. I thought you knew this?

 

[BurnedOut]

There was a big paper a few years ago using big 5. They found "types" using factor analysis, but were only able to come up with four, and it only described a small portion of the population. Most of the population could not be categorised by the most evidenced personality model (they still had personality attributes, but it wasn't a pronounced grouping).

That is why I had said that personality is the last thing to read when you are learning psychology. Current researches are not worth a damn to practical real life application in a way that is accessible to everybody.

 

[BurnedOut]

Just ex-mods. I thought you knew this?

What? No, I did not know this. Who is handling the administrative work then?

 

[Hadoblado]

Nobody!! Hahahaha

This ship has no captain. We are a perfect anarchic society.