MBTI an Illusion?

[Auburn]

I'm actually surprised this has had little discussion in this forum. Seeing how it is our nature to question most any concept and theory down to the very nuts and bolts, why not question the MBTI in the same manner?

I wonder...
We all seem to join this forum with the preconception that the MBTI holds at least some, if not a substantial, level of truth in it. I wonder why...

Objectively speaking it doesn't make sense to accept a concept unless it stands up the harshest criticism. Yet many, if not all, of us here have no physical/neurological evidence to substantiate the claims of the MBTI. We believe in it because we see the external manifestations of human behavior fit the model outlined by the MBTI. We see the art, and assume there is an artist. We assume that in order for such patterns to be so accurate, it must have a level of neurological truth. Is that not too large of an assumption to make?

I suspect we overlook this large hole/assumtion in the MBTI and are persuaded to believe it because it describes our own selves so well (subjective). "It works for me, so it must be true". But is there really any empirical/logical evidence for what we believe?

Perhaps I have missed something and there is indeed neurological proof for the claims of the MBTI. However I suspect there are none because I have yet to come across a counselor or psychologist who actually took the MBTI theory seriously. Why wouldn't psychologist use such an asset as the MBTI? The only answer that seems plausible is that perhaps the MBTI is only a mere illusion that is accepted by only a handful of people; by those few who find within it a pattern of their own behavior and therefore find an acceptance in it.

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

the way I look at it: MBTI may not be fully accurate, but it is better than nothing.

 

[flow]

This is kind of why I have so little faith in Psychology right now. I think Carl Jung was building towards something, especially when he came up with the concepts of being introverted or extroverted, and this theory builds on his ideas. However, the majority of psychological experts don't seem to hold Jung in very high esteem, and in doing so, I don't hold THEM in very high esteem. I'm like Ninja on this one, for me, the MBTI is simply the greatest psychological theory I've come across. It makes sense to me, and I can see how its theories are on the right path. Meanwhile, theories like the The Big Five and all that jazz that seem to get way more attention, seem like a step backwards.

 

[Cogwulf]

A thought of mine has been that when people first read the profile that the MBTI gives them, they quickly make a subjective judgement about whether they think it accurately describes them or not. And I think that INTPs in particular will then tend to make the assumption that it must be accurate for everyone else as well

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

Freud was a fraud. He even admitted that most of the concepts he came up with were thought up on cocaine. Jung was more into psychedelics. Its a known fact that cocaine while it does stimulate certain areas of the brain, actually numbs the rest of the brain. Its no surprise why I don't believe in hardly any of Freud's concepts, why I don't like cocaine, and most modern psychology seems to be based on the fraud-man. Its also no surprise to me why coke is the #1 drug of choice for the masses, it fits right in with the ESxx frame of mind which it seems the majority have.

 

[Cogwulf]

This is kind of why I have so little faith in Psychology right now. I think Carl Jung was building towards something, especially when he came up with the concepts of being introverted or extroverted, and this theory builds on his ideas. However, the majority of psychological experts don't seem to hold Jung in very high esteem, and in doing so, I don't hold THEM in very high esteem. I'm like Ninja on this one, for me, the MBTI is simply the greatest psychological theory I've come across. It makes sense to me, and I can see how its theories are on the right path. Meanwhile, theories like the The Big Five and all that jazz that seem to get way more attention, seem like a step backwards.

Exactly what I think. From articles I've read, psychologists seem to sneer at the MBTI because it is antiquated and unscientific. They claim that there is no empirical data to support its validity, but don't seem interested in carrying out any trials to prove or disprove it.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

The problem with MBTI may be more with the testing rather than the theory itself. MBTI could be on the right track but may be incomplete in terms of measuring a personality. 16 types always struck me as a rather low number. Perhaps there are subcategories within each type that thus far has not been ascertained. Thus the testing is limited in it's accuracy. How many here have professed that they've gotten different outcomes taking the tests different times? That immediately calls into question the test itself, not necessarily the theory.

To make an analogy, consider Galileo's heliocentric model of the universe as opposed to Ptolemy's geocentric model. Clearly Galileo's model was an important step in the right direction but it was a far cry from the Big Bang theory widely believed today. Perhaps MBTI is in the Galileo phase of it's development?

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

4 gets turned into 16 which should be turned into 256

 

[flow]

I think if we started looking at how people's primary and secondary functions are ordered, we'd find that there are in fact way more combinations of personalities. Even among INTPs, our functions are consistently ordered differently. Most of us start out with Ti, then Ne, and from there on we see differences. The INTP profile describes our primary function extraordinarily well, that's probably why we are all taken back with its accuracy and believe in this MBTI stuff.

 

[Cogwulf]

Freud was a fraud. He even admitted that most of the concepts he came up with were thought up on cocaine. Jung was more into psychedelics. Its a known fact that cocaine while it does stimulate certain areas of the brain, actually numbs the rest of the brain. Its no surprise why I don't believe in hardly any of Freud's concepts, why I don't like cocaine, and most modern psychology seems to be based on the fraud-man. Its also no surprise to me why coke is the #1 drug of choice for the masses, it fits right in with the ESxx frame of mind which it seems the majority have.

That argument is more or less entirely lacking in logic. Just because Freuds ideas came from drugs doesn't make the ideas wrong. The fact that cocaine numbs some areas of the brain is irrelevant as we don't know what areas of the brain are required to have a good idea. Your argument for why you don't like cocaine seems circular, you say you don't like it because someone you don't like used to take it, and you don't like him because he took cocaine.
You claim Freuds ideas were all long, but you clearly believe in the MBTI despite it being based on Freuds ideas.

Overall, Freud -Jung- was an idea man, not a theory man. The theories he built may or may not be wrong, but his basic ideas have survived until today, and they survived for good reasons

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I don't think we should look at MBTI as a finished product. Myers-Briggs took Jung's theory and added the P/J. There's no reason to say that another factor(s) couldn't or shouldn't be added.

Here's a pdf link to a paper that shows the problems with the testing.

 

[snowqueen]

I don't think neurology is sufficiently accurate in itself to give credence to anything else - that is a big assumption which in itself requires critique. It is based on a notion that if you can prove something at cellular level it proves something about the whole. Cells don't tell us everything about the human body system any more than atoms tell us about a table. So the neurological argument is never going to give us any insight into the accuracy or not of MBTI.

There was a TV programme on in the UK some time ago which I wish I could get my hands on. In it they had 16 participants - yes you guessed - and they set them a series of tasks and predicted how they would behave. The participants had no idea what their type was btw. It was hilarious! That provided much more sense of how accurate the MBTI is - predictability is quite a strong piece of evidence.

I agree though that the types are a bit limited - we had a thread here where people discussed which was their stronger preference - NTPI or PNIT etc - I thought that was quite interesting. My T developed last because I had such a bad experience at school. I think INTPs who don't develop their intellect/critical thinking are much more prone to taking drugs, drifting and quitting, for example.

 

[snowqueen]

You claim Freuds ideas were all long, but you clearly believe in the MBTI despite it being based on Freuds ideas.

It is not remotely based on Freud. It is based on Jung.

 

[Auburn]

IB, I agree completely.
Even if the MBTI was neurologically grounded, I doubt that it would fit the 16 type model in the way that it is currently understood. The current model is simply the best we can do in trying to describe some sort of pattern we sense is there but can't quite understand fully. If, hypothetically, we came to understand the real workings behind the MBTI I suspect the 16 type model would become obsolete in the face of a much greater model that we have yet to stumble upon.

Cells don't tell us everything about the human body system any more than atoms tell us about a table.

Snow, I disagree. A table is nothing more than a collection of atoms that are attached to each other via their electrons. The atoms tell us everything about the table because the atoms are the table. In the like manner a body is nothing more than a collection of cells. The cells tell us everything about the body, for the cells are the body.

Perhaps neurology too is an incomplete area with our current understanding, but I do believe that it is the right approach to understanding behavior. Neurology has been able to pinpoint what areas of the brain are responsible for all motor movements, and even various emotions.

I anticipate that with it's escallation of understanding, someday even our very "trails of thoughts" could be accurately traced by measuring where the electric current travels from neuron to neuron through various different sections of the brain. Surely we will sooner reach a complete understanding of behavior/personality via neurology than ascend to transhumanism - which in itself doesn't seem to be very far.

They claim that there is no empirical data to support its validity, but don't seem interested in carrying out any trials to prove or disprove it.

This is so true.

 

[Cogwulf]

How many here have professed that they've gotten different outcomes taking the tests different times? That immediately calls into question the test itself, not necessarily the theory.

Indeed, when I took the test at first, my result was ISTP, but after further reading I decided I was misunderstanding some questions. One question in particular was whether I think in an 'abstract' or 'concrete' way. It turned out that my definitions of abstract and concrete were quite different to the definitions that the writers of the tests were using.

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

It is not remotely based on Freud. It is based on Jung.

hence why I actually like the MBTI types, I came to the conclusion I did after taking multiple tests on different sites, and getting INTP at least 90% of the time

 

[Cogwulf]

It is not remotely based on Freud. It is based on Jung.

I hate it when I do this, my biggest weakness is getting names confused with each other

Sorry about that

 

[flow]

It's cool, for the longest time Carl Jung was being influenced by Freud's ideas. It's just at some point he realized where Freud was off, called him on it, and then they never reconciled.

 

[Woden]

Yet many, if not all, of us here have no physical/neurological evidence to substantiate the claims of the MBTI......But is there really any empirical/logical evidence for what we believe?

In the study Johnson et al the researchers are unknowingly describing the differences between N and S types; although, they claim they're searching for introversion and extroversion in their study, their descriptions fit that more of S and N types in the MBTI: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi...INDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Perhaps I have missed something and there is indeed neurological proof for the claims of the MBTI. However I suspect there are none because I have yet to come across a counselor or psychologist who actually took the MBTI theory seriously. Why wouldn't psychologist use such an asset as the MBTI?

Psychologists do not discredit the MBTI accoding to the study by Norcross, Koocher and Garofalo: http://www.ausapt.org.au/pdf/publications/research/Kerr_edge_reality.pdf

 

[morricone]

Being an INTP, I obviously thought about the validity of the MBTI myself and came to this conclusion:

First, in my country the MBTI isn't popular at all and I stumbled upon it on the net somewhere. I never liked those typing tests or stuff like that. But the INTP/J descriptions really felt reasonable. But now I don't see them like boxes anymore, more like an outline. Just when I read the thread "You know you're an INTP when ..." it became apparent to me that we share a lot, but still are very different. Also, I never saw the MBTI as a scientific theory.

 

[Eljua]

See, personally, I took the test online, read a description of what being an INTP was and found it remarkably accurate, then I went online, found someone I know who seemed like a polar opposite of me, and sent him in the direction of the test, and asked him to let me know if he found any of the descriptions accurate. He came up as an ENFJ, and found the results to be accurate to him. I then repeated the process with people who talk to me regularly, and tried to correlate their results with how I perceive them, and how they perceive themselves to see if it seemed at least partially accurate. This was before I even found my way here.*

But that may be just my approach to it

*far too much of the comma

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

how do you people get the image from mypersonality.info to display in the signature? every single copy and paste i try doesn't work. it just shows the raw code and no image gets displayed.

 

[flow]

Save the image to your desktop, and then add the image in your sig (there's an option for an image I believe).

 

[Firehazard159]

4 gets turned into 16 which should be turned into 256

I thought this was interesting, probably not too solidly accurate, but could be developed into a well structured theory. It's the initial breakdown of the 16 to 256 types, but it's only for INTP's

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=36491

Started a new thread at http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=102774#post102774 for a side discussion on the above link :P

 

[mfratt]

When I first took the MBTI test (out of curiosity) and got INTP, I was of course skeptical. I was reading the description thinking "Holy crap, this is pretty dead on accurate, but it must all be a load of bullocks." The I read something like "INTPs may even question their own INTP-ness or the typing system as a whole." Bam, winner.

But I've tried to be skeptical, yet its held too much water through my experience and analysis. I find that I can pretty accutately type other people, and their functions tend to accurately describe the way they behave.

I've taken just about every free MBTI test on the internet, in all different states of mind (happy, sad, sober, drunk, high, etc) to see if I would get a different result, and I always get INTP, so I think this typing system is pretty sturdy.

Its certainly not perfect, but in terms of pop-psychology, it seems to be the best we've got.

 

[snowqueen]

Snow, I disagree. A table is nothing more than a collection of atoms that are attached to each other via their electrons. The atoms tell us everything about the table because the atoms are the table. In the like manner a body is nothing more than a collection of cells. The cells tell us everything about the body, for the cells are the body.

A table may be nothing more than a collection of atoms but knowing and understanding that most certainly does not tell us 'everything' about a table! That implies that the empirical truth of something is 'everything' we need to know. That is a reductionist view which is limited by a notion that everything can be reduced to the sum of its parts. The reductionist view is a partial view of reality and one which we actually rarely engage with. A couple going round a furniture store do not choose a table by saying 'that is a pleasing arrangement of atoms'. For us, there is no reality outside of human experience and while we can 'understand' that tables (and everything else) are made of atoms, we also 'understand' in wider and richer ways. We can know about the practical aspects of a table - whether the size will fit our family or the room, whether the colour will fit the room, whether the style will fit in, whether the style will impress our friends, whether the table is beautiful, whether the table is expandable, how the table must be cleaned. Not only that but through using the table we attach meanings to it which also contribute to a local understanding - we remember family meals when we look at the table, we think 'that table is a bugger to clean' and so on.

Human understanding is a much richer and more interesting phenomenon than simply empirical science - and 'evidence' is a lot more than reductionist data.

Now, with a table, which is a fairly permanent solid - yes it is slowly degrading, but isn't exactly a dynamic system - we can probably say things about it which are fairly accurate basic on Newtonian and quantum physics, but when we talk of humans and human behaviour we really can't pretend that quantum or reductionist understandings can really help us. Neurology is a tempting and seductive science because we think the mind arises in the brain and we tend to think of the brain as a glorified computer - none of which is problematic per se, but actually we don't exist in a vacuum - humans are dynamic systems, constantly responding consciously and unconsciously in highly complex internal and external environments. Neurology is absolutely fascinating, I agree, but to suggest that it can tell us 'everything' about the mind and behaviour is also something that must remain problematic. Thus, to suggest that the only way of proving the validity of MBTI is through a neurological proof is a very limited view. There are other research methods which can also provide useful evidence.

[/QUOTE]

Indeed, when I took the test at first, my result was ISTP, but after further reading I decided I was misunderstanding some questions. One question in particular was whether I think in an 'abstract' or 'concrete' way. It turned out that my definitions of abstract and concrete were quite different to the definitions that the writers of the tests were using.

All tests which require the person to provide answers are limited from the outset because of the accuracy or veracity of the participant's answers - this compromises the reliability but not the validity. If people who take the MBTI are honest and self-aware then it's likely to produce accurate results - if they are consciously or unconsciously dishonest (I used to score F because I wanted to be a 'nicer' person and answered the feely questions inaccurately but didn't do this deliberately), or if they are not really in touch with their own tendencies, or if, as Cogwulf says, they misunderstand, then the answer is compromised, but if those factors were corrected, then the MBTI could be accurate and therefore valid.

To test MBTI you need to test the hypotheses - and one of the best ways is though predictability which is why I would love to get my hands on the TV programme I mentioned. The hypotheses are to do with behaviour, so you predict the behaviour and if it correlates with the types then the evidence that it is accurate is pretty high. The 'you know you're INTP' is a really interesting thread because of that. You could look at the predictions of the way INTPs should behave and compare to the thread and say there's a high correlation. Actually you could read all the forums and do the same. On Personality Cafe I no longer have to look at the types to spot the INTPs and INFPs - I can tell just from the content 99% of the time.

Neurology is definitely an important and fascinating contribution to understanding humans - I am not disputing that - but it is not the only or most reliable way of validating MBTI.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

You know, one thing I've been thinking about concerning the validity of MBTI...

Carl Jung - INTP (Is Jung the one who's arguably INFP?)
Isabel Myers Briggs - INFP
David Keirsey - INTP
​

Honestly, I feel like the divider between INTP and INFP is one of the weaker ones... Maybe everyone would like to disagree about it, but the point is this. MBTI theory has been developed almost exclusively from the INTP/INFP viewpoint... This is -our- kind of theory, made by us, usually explained in our language... (Theories and model developing for better understanding, anyone?)

It makes sense to me, then, that most of the other types have little interest or use for the MBTI... In fact, it seems like the social reception we INTPs receive as people may very well mirror the kind of reception the MBTI theory gets in the world...

Of course, I think the affinity here makes us very vulnerable to bias in favor of it... But I also think it's very interesting how much our type collectively works towards improving it...

I suppose it also makes us vulnerable to group think by means of it... (There was something like that in another thread, right?)

* * * * *
​

Personally, I think the MBTI is a wonderful tool for achieving a generalized understanding of other people. If you're having trouble interacting with a person, you try and type them to get a working understanding of how they're thinking, what sort of things they probably value, etc... And, honestly, it seems like the more difficult / dysfunctional a person is to get along with, the easier it is to type them...

And if someone isn't easy to type well... you shouldn't try to force a conclusion... clearly they don't neatly fit the theory, so you should leave it behind.
​

Snow, I disagree. A table is nothing more than a collection of atoms that are attached to each other via their electrons. The atoms tell us everything about the table because the atoms are the table. In the like manner a body is nothing more than a collection of cells. The cells tell us everything about the body, for the cells are the body.

While I know some people speculate that humans are far more than just the sum of their body, I don't think trying to talk about that point will get us very far...

My feeling on this is, currently we can look at the atoms / cells / functions of the brain sections - but it always seems like we're far from having a great working understanding of these things... We can begin by analyzing the whole of a person, or we can start by analyzing the cells / organs / body of a person - but we can't really translate the micro understanding up to a macro understanding, nor vice-verca... Our science is trying to create a translation guide, but it isn't together yet.

*I wrote the above while getting ninja'd by Snowqueen, but I didn't update it to react.
​

 

[Beat Mango]

It's not an illusion, it's a psychological perspective. And so far, it's the best perspective I've come across.

 

[fatalbeliever]

No test can accurately classify humanity into types, but the MBTI is a great tool to take a good look at yourself and, in my opinion, it depicts the different types of personalities quite accurately - at least compared to other personality tests. I was sceptical when I got the result, but when I read different portraits of INTPs on different sites, it all seemed to make sense. You just have to interpret it from your own point of view. I know an INTJ, and, I have to say, only after talking to him about the test did I realize what a difference one letter can make.

Actually, we will only be able to classify humanity when we will be able to see into each others' minds, because questions are far from enough to evaluate something as complicated as a personality. And, finally, then we will realize that we all ARE unique AFTER ALL...

 

[snafupants]

I'm actually surprised this has had little discussion in this forum. Seeing how it is our nature to question most any concept and theory down to the very nuts and bolts, why not question the MBTI in the same manner?

I wonder...
We all seem to join this forum with the preconception that the MBTI holds at least some, if not a substantial, level of truth in it. I wonder why...

Objectively speaking it doesn't make sense to accept a concept unless it stands up the harshest criticism. Yet many, if not all, of us here have no physical/neurological evidence to substantiate the claims of the MBTI. We believe in it because we see the external manifestations of human behavior fit the model outlined by the MBTI. We see the art, and assume there is an artist. We assume that in order for such patterns to be so accurate, it must have a level of neurological truth. Is that not too large of an assumption to make?

I suspect we overlook this large hole/assumtion in the MBTI and are persuaded to believe it because it describes our own selves so well (subjective). "It works for me, so it must be true". But is there really any empirical/logical evidence for what we believe?

Perhaps I have missed something and there is indeed neurological proof for the claims of the MBTI. However I suspect there are none because I have yet to come across a counselor or psychologist who actually took the MBTI theory seriously. Why wouldn't psychologist use such an asset as the MBTI? The only answer that seems plausible is that perhaps the MBTI is only a mere illusion that is accepted by only a handful of people; by those few who find within it a pattern of their own behavior and therefore find an acceptance in it.

MBTI makes sense for me and my experiences, which heavily factors into any Ti users' consideration and eventual imprimatur. Also, the MBTI factors correlate with the Big 5 factors, so the letters aren't completely arbitrary. In short I believe establishment psychologists largely repudiate the MBTI because, one, they already have the Big 5 and, two, Skinnerian behaviorism and empiricism tend to reject analytical psychology as basically unscientific and voodoo-like. I really don't put too much stock in science or academia. Heidegger knew that science was bankrupt because it didn't analyze its predicates - namely, why is sense perception taken for wholesale Reality?

 

[Ink]

Spoiler

Learning, reinforcement, and reward-seeking behavior

Dopamine is commonly associated with the reward system of the brain, providing feelings of enjoyment and reinforcement to motivate a person to perform certain activities. Dopamine is released (particularly in areas such as the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex) by rewarding experiences such as food, sex, drugs, and neutral stimuli that become associated with them.[41] Recent studies indicate that aggression may also stimulate the release of dopamine in this way.[42]

This theory can be discussed in terms of drugs such as cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamines, which directly or indirectly lead to an increase of dopamine in the mesolimbic reward pathway of the brain, and in relation to neurobiological theories of chemical addiction (not to be confused with psychological dependence), arguing that this dopamine pathway is pathologically altered in addicted persons.[43] In recent studies, cholinergic inactivation of the nucleus accumbens was able to disrupt the acquisition of drug reinforced behaviors, suggesting that dopamine has a more limited involvement in the acquisition of both drug self-administration and drug-conditioned place-preference behaviors than previously thought.[44][45]

Dopaminergic neurons of the midbrain are the main source of dopamine in the brain.[41] Dopamine has been shown to be involved in the control of movements, the signaling of error in prediction of reward, motivation, and cognition. Cerebral dopamine depletion is the hallmark of Parkinson's disease.[41] Other pathological states have also been associated with dopamine dysfunction, such as schizophrenia, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as well as drug abuse.

Dopamine is closely associated with reward-seeking behaviors, such as approach, consumption, and addiction.[41] Recent research suggests that the firing of dopaminergic neurons is motivational as a consequence of reward-anticipation. This hypothesis is based on the evidence that, when a reward is greater than expected, the firing of certain dopaminergic neurons increases, which consequently increases desire or motivation towards the reward.[41] However, recent research finds that while some dopaminergic neurons react in the way expected of reward neurons, others do not and seem to respond in regard to unpredictability.[46] This research finds the reward neurons predominate in the ventromedial region in the substantia nigra pars compacta as well as the ventral tegmental area. Neurons in these areas project mainly to the ventral striatum and thus might transmit value-related information in regard to reward values.[46] The nonreward neurons are predominate in the dorsolateral area of the substantia nigra pars compacta which projects to the dorsal striatum and may relate to orienting behaviour.[46] It has been suggested that the difference between these two types of dopaminergic neurons arises from their input: reward-linked ones have input from the basal forebrain, while the nonreward-related ones from the lateral habenula.[46]

There are innate differences in human brains, whether It's more to it than neurotransmitters isnt clear, the MBTI is the only practical way of explaining these differences yet that I know of

 

[Paladin-X]

While the MBTI types are described as 'Personality Types', that was not the original intention. The functions, in my opinion, were not meant as a descriptor of personality as a whole, but an underlying framework that affects personality and behaviour.

The personality profiles that we see as a result, ultimately describe tendencies and potential personality traits that are often observed in the given types, but they are not synonymous.

Si does not equate to memory. However, it is observed that Si users tend to have good memories. Ni does not equate to imagination. However, Ni users, quite often, happen to be rather imaginative.

The functions and resultant combination thereof, merely describe ways in which we typically perceive and judge the inner and outer world. A given personality trait can be observed in all types, however, the given trait will manifest itself ever so slightly in each type. Some types may typically display a given trait more than others, however it is not entirely indicative of type or function, merely more probable.

 

[Architect]

Younger people tend to discredit MBTI, because they are looking forward to the rest of their life with endless possibilities and are uncomfortable with being boxed in. They also don't know themselves very well yet.

Older people know MBTI is correct because they've got a lifetime of experience showing it working in themselves and others.

I've had my nose rubbed in the fact of the importance and influence of type.

 

[Montresor]

I think the shadow functions play a very big role in a person's personality. I like to see them as "operating in the shadow" of their counter-respective dominant functions.

The value of MBTI is so people who do understand it can keep themselves operating on an efficient level, so they can understand what is happening when they begin to act weird (like using Te as you start to stress out at work or something).

It's also a tool to (very very quickly) type another person so you can anticipate their motivations and potential reactions to a situation. Being able to anticipate their frame of mind/motivations propels you into a position of control.

It means fewer arguments with Js (for one thing), because it gives us the tools to identify them, and then to describe (rationalize more like) to them the P-traits that we have; traits they very much do not appreciate.

What I'm saying is it gives you a neatly-packaged utility to pry into others, figure them out somewhat, and decide what you have in common.

Last point: I had dinner with my E/ISTJ mother last night (she maintains she is introverted but I have my doubts). I'm sort of helping her understand MBTI (not that she cares that much), and every time things start to go bad I remind her she's using Te (abrasive) and that the common ground we have is Si/Ne. It helps me find a level that I can reliably communicate with her without starting crazy arguments.

Every time she lays the rules of life out on the table I can propose alternatives without having a fight. This is what I meant by being in a position of control.

 

[Coolydudey]

There was a TV programme on in the UK some time ago which I wish I could get my hands on. In it they had 16 participants - yes you guessed - and they set them a series of tasks and predicted how they would behave. The participants had no idea what their type was btw. It was hilarious! That provided much more sense of how accurate the MBTI is - predictability is quite a strong piece of evidence.

@snowqueen

Can you (pretty please) try and remember?

 

[Auburn]

This thread is 4 years old... o,o
snowqueen left the forum years ago.

 

[Reluctantly]

Heidegger knew that science was bankrupt because it didn't analyze its predicates - namely, why is sense perception taken for wholesale Reality?

Because if I kick you in the nuts, even if you don't believe in pain, it still has an affect on you. ?

Intuition can be rejected without consequence. ?

 

[Philovitist]

This is kind of why I have so little faith in Psychology right now. I think Carl Jung was building towards something, especially when he came up with the concepts of being introverted or extroverted, and this theory builds on his ideas. However, the majority of psychological experts don't seem to hold Jung in very high esteem, and in doing so, I don't hold THEM in very high esteem. I'm like Ninja on this one, for me, the MBTI is simply the greatest psychological theory I've come across. It makes sense to me, and I can see how its theories are on the right path. Meanwhile, theories like the The Big Five and all that jazz that seem to get way more attention, seem like a step backwards.

oh wow...

I've always thought INTPs had this commitment to rationality. I thought that's what made them, them.

 

[Philovitist]

No stock in science or academia..? Because you disagree with it?

Seriously, you guys are like horoscope readers. It's mind-boggling how you dupe yourselves. I don't even know what to say. It's so disappointing.

 

[Duxwing]

IB, I agree completely.
Even if the MBTI was neurologically grounded, I doubt that it would fit the 16 type model in the way that it is currently understood. The current model is simply the best we can do in trying to describe some sort of pattern we sense is there but can't quite understand fully. If, hypothetically, we came to understand the real workings behind the MBTI I suspect the 16 type model would become obsolete in the face of a much greater model that we have yet to stumble upon.


Snow, I disagree. A table is nothing more than a collection of atoms that are attached to each other via their electrons. The atoms tell us everything about the table because the atoms are the table. In the like manner a body is nothing more than a collection of cells. The cells tell us everything about the body, for the cells are the body.

Perhaps neurology too is an incomplete area with our current understanding, but I do believe that it is the right approach to understanding behavior. Neurology has been able to pinpoint what areas of the brain are responsible for all motor movements, and even various emotions.

I anticipate that with it's escallation of understanding, someday even our very "trails of thoughts" could be accurately traced by measuring where the electric current travels from neuron to neuron through various different sections of the brain. Surely we will sooner reach a complete understanding of behavior/personality via neurology than ascend to transhumanism - which in itself doesn't seem to be very far.

This is so true.

To understand the table, one not only needs to understand the atoms of the table but the relationships between the atoms because any given bunch of atoms isn't necessarily a table, just like any given collection of musical notes isn't necessarily a song. So yes, more to the table exists than the atoms in themselves.

For future referencr, your argument is an informal fallacy of the form:

X is made of Y's
Therefore, on the whole, X is like a Y

But obviously, a table isn't like an atom.

-Duxwing

 

[Reluctantly]

No stock in science or academia..? Because you disagree with it?

Seriously, you guys are like horoscope readers. It's mind-boggling how you dupe yourselves. I don't even know what to say. It's so disappointing.

Analytical Psychology is akin to wisdom as science is to biology. They serve different purposes. Do you think it's a good idea for academia and science to disregard wisdom? Not that I'm suggesting one should only focus on wisdom, disregarding academia and science either however.

 

[snafupants]

Because if I kick you in the nuts, even if you don't believe in pain, it still has an affect on you. ?

Intuition can be rejected without consequence. ?

@Reluctantly

That seems like a non sequitur. I'm not saying you should reject anything; merely that you should analyze your biases. Once you have analyzed your biases, then you may be able to accept or decline the facticity of a phenomenon. I happen to repudiate the modus operandi of science and academia because at center, to me, these modalities and institutions are intellectually bankrupt.

 

[snafupants]

Anyway, the JCF theory supposedly undergirding MBTI has been empirically shown to be unempirical. The letter approach has higher criterion validity.

 

[snafupants]

No stock in science or academia..? Because you disagree with it?

Seriously, you guys are like horoscope readers. It's mind-boggling how you dupe yourselves. I don't even know what to say. It's so disappointing.

I dislike science's arrogation that sense perception perfectly simulates reality; they haven't analyzed the most important predicate. Also, I feel science's hypothesis generation is self-limiting. With academia, I see obsequious grant proposals and political jockeying instead of serious scholarship.

 

[snafupants]

As an aside, these lexical constructs - government, academia, science, etcetera - these things only represent people, and usually quite idiotic people. More simply, the value of science is beholden to its tools and practitioners; the latter alludes to method. To use the term government is to feel the too broad vitiation of employing the term drugs. It's too wide and therefore almost meaningless. There are more specific constructs and predicaments underlying umbrella names like government or academia; I oppose these more specific constructs and beguiled people.

 

[Philovitist]

Analytical Psychology is akin to wisdom as science is to biology. They serve different purposes. Do you think it's a good idea for academia and science to disregard wisdom? Not that I'm suggesting one should only focus on wisdom, disregarding academia and science either however.

A lot of things people call wisdom turn out to be bullshit. That's what science is for. Differentiation.

 

[snafupants]

A lot of things people call wisdom turn out to be bullshit. That's what science is for. Differentiation.

A lot of things people call science turn out to be bullshit. That's what wisdom is for. Differentiation.

 

[Hadoblado]

A lot of things people call science turn out to be bullshit. That's what wisdom is for. Differentiation.

But also what science is for? Why are we comparing the two again?

 

[viche]

I've developed an interest in jungian typology because it corresponded to what I have observed of people even before I read anything from MBTI and Jung.

Periodically I run into other people, who start describing to me how they have observed different classes or groups of individuals, and often their observations start sounding like what Jung has already described. So I tell them to look into Jung and MBTI/socionics because they are re-discovering what has already been described at length.

I've seen an ENFJ girl re-discover type temperaments (IxxP, ExxJ, etc.)
I've seen an INFP guy re-discover socionics rings of supervision.
I've seen an INTP guy re-disocver socionics rings of social order or benefit relations.

When many people independently discover same kind of patterns, then one starts to suspect that there must be something real behind these, not just a delusion.

 

[J-man]

No stock in science or academia..? Because you disagree with it?

Seriously, you guys are like horoscope readers. It's mind-boggling how you dupe yourselves. I don't even know what to say. It's so disappointing.

It's disappointing to see someone get so worked up over something that is just fine as it is. YOU are the one judging. There isn't some objective concept by which every one must be judged.

A lot of things people call wisdom turn out to be bullshit. That's what science is for. Differentiation.

A lot of things people call wisdom are not wisdom.

I, for one, don't value science much.