MBTI in Psychology and Neuroscience

[Comfopleb]

As the title suggest, let us discuss the place and value of the MBTI model in modern psychology and neuroscience.
And by us I mean you. Go ahead.

 

[Cyberpunk]

My 5 cents...

Neuroscience is hard, good science. Psychology is a decent intellectual pursuit. MBTI however is a highly speculative framework and I find it hard to believe that it would have a purpose in clinical psychology. Just the fact that a lot of its promoters find it hard to resist the temptation of looking down upon certain types and form some sort of hierarchy/caste-system from it suggests how easily it is to misuse the system. I am not arguing against the theory of MBTI, and I'm not 100% sure of my stance towards it.

And though I and a lot of people are attracted to speculative ideas, I think it's best to keep MBTI within that framework until sufficient research can in some way confirm its "truth" in a clinical, empircal sense and thus its utility, or allow us to discard it as psuedoscience.

But psychology is a much too established science to have room for speculation like this. Even though it's a highly experimental science in itself. But this by no means imply that it shouldn't be researched upon, to the contrary IMO.

 

[Hadoblado]

Good response.

I think there are elements of MBTI that are very useful, but I also think these aspects could be more accurately captured with some bottom-up experimentation. As is, MBTI seems to me as if someone is trying to fit a round peg through a square hole. It's mostly useful, but it seems like someone wanted a nice neat theory rather than an accurate description of reality.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Cyberpunk, etc.

decent intellectual pursuit. MBTI however is a highly speculative framework and I find it hard to believe that it would have a purpose in clinical psychology. Just the fact that a lot of its promoters find it hard to resist the temptation of looking down upon certain types and form some sort of hierarchy/caste-system from it suggests how easily it is to misuse the system. I am not arguing against the theory of MBTI, and I'm not 100% sure of my stance towards it.

And though I and a lot of people are attracted to speculative ideas, I think it's best to keep MBTI within that framework until sufficient research can in some way confirm its "truth" in a clinical, empircal sense and thus its utility, or allow us to discard it as psuedoscience.

But psychology is a much too established science to have room for speculation like this. Even though it's a highly experimental science in itself. But this by no means imply that it shouldn't be researched upon, to the contrary IMO.

I will take your word neuroscience is a hard science, but I don't think clinical psychology is. The latter is an interaction between two people and so is harder to measure. (Doesn't mean it can't be done.) It would help for both sides to acknowledge there is a difference between thinking and feeling, particulars and generalities, judging and observing, being sociable and enjoying oneself. Missing one of those pairs will affect the outcome.

 

[Hadoblado]

Neuroscience is indeed a hard science. I may be missing something, but I don't think it was implied that clinical psychology was also a hard science; only that it is a science.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Just the fact that a lot of its promoters find it hard to resist the temptation of looking down upon certain types and form some sort of hierarchy/caste-system from it suggests how easily it is to misuse the system.

such is the case with e.g. big 5 as well. it's hard to make a personality taxonomy neutral since it's always gonna be subject to cultural biases as well as more universally valid ethical principles, like every science dealing with us humans ourselves and informing our decision making. to score high on any big 5 trait (except for neuroticism/emotional stability which doesn't have an established polarity) is decidedly a good thing.

i reckon the ambition of jungian typology is to acknowledge and embrace the relative value of every type while also stressing the importance of functional balance. the possibility of such an approach is an advantage to dealing with dichotomies and preference rather than separate desirable traits.

however i do agree the concept has been misused. primarily there's an N bias because everyone wants to be a deep reflective person; the value of S people is actually harder to pin down than that of N people, even though their work contribution is more tangibly practical and verifiable. i suppose the N is more individualist and since individualism is highly regarded (romanticized?) in our culture, the collective benefits of S are overlooked in favour of N. we tend to view S people as disposable in a sense, because they're more overtly conformist.

would you bet on N or S for transhumanism?

 

[Cyberpunk]

Good response.

I think there are elements of MBTI that are very useful, but I also think these aspects could be more accurately captured with some bottom-up experimentation. As is, MBTI seems to me as if someone is trying to fit a round peg through a square hole. It's mostly useful, but it seems like someone wanted a nice neat theory rather than an accurate description of reality.

Yes, and therefore I don't think it's a coincidence that INXX-types have a clear majority on MBTI-forums. "They" seem to identify with their type in a mostly positive way, but man, I have seen borderline-nazism on some boards when INXX- and ESXX-types have interacted.

It's a bit dangerous because I think that I-types are more prone to feel different compared to other people. And when this difference is implied to boil down to some intellectual capacity, combined with the rareness of the types, it seems to lead to intellectual elitism in a lot of ways.

That said, so do reading hard books or listening to obscure music. But the implied science-aspect of it and it's objective wording makes for people to use it as a way to improve the image of themselves in a destructive (for others) way.

@Cyberpunk, etc.
I will take your word neuroscience is a hard science, but I don't think clinical psychology is. The latter is an interaction between two people and so is harder to measure. (Doesn't mean it can't be done.) It would help for both sides to acknowledge there is a difference between thinking and feeling, particulars and generalities, judging and observing, being sociable and enjoying oneself. Missing one of those pairs will affect the outcome.

I might have screwed something up in my wording. I meant that psychology is more of an intellectual pursuit than a hard sciences such as neuroscience etc. That being said, I'm not implying it's necessarily unscientific, just not... hard.

And MBTI is like one step beyond that.

such is the case with e.g. big 5 as well. it's hard to make a personality taxonomy neutral since it's always gonna be subject to cultural biases as well as more universally valid ethical principles, like every science dealing with us humans ourselves and informing our decision making. to score high on any big 5 trait (except for neuroticism/emotional stability which doesn't have an established polarity) is decidedly a good thing.

i reckon the ambition of jungian typology is to acknowledge and embrace the relative value of every type while also stressing the importance of functional balance. the possibility of such an approach is an advantage to dealing with dichotomies and preference rather than separate desirable traits.

however i do agree the concept has been misused. primarily there's an N bias because everyone wants to be a deep reflective person; the value of S people is actually harder to pin down than that of N people, even though their work contribution is more tangibly practical and verifiable. i suppose the N is more individualist and since individualism is highly regarded (romanticized?) in our culture, the collective benefits of S are overlooked in favour of N. we tend to view S people as disposable in a sense, because they're more overtly conformist.

would you bet on N or S for transhumanism?

Yet I find it amusing that when the minority - INXX-types - become the majority, like on internet boards and so forth, it becomes clear that the social phenomenons such as elitism and preconceptions are evidently not limited to EXXX-types, and especially not ESXX-types. I find this amusing because at the same time, the latter types are often discussed in a context that seems to imply that INXX-types suffer from the social tyranny of the majority. And while that might be true in one sense, one shouldn't so hastily jump to the conclusion that it's a EXXX-type phenomena instead of a universal social dynamic that all humans take part in. Willingly or not.

And regarding transhumanism, I think that one of the main goals of it as a ideology is to elevate humans from the S-dominance that is evident in society. As ideas, N is preferable to S in a society dominated by intellectual pursuits and development aided by technology.

But if you're asking me who I think will be the ones who implement the ideology in practice, I would bet on S-types. When enough S-types have grown up in a society where ideas of technological improvement of humans and expanding of consciousness have taken over the older ideas of working to earn a living, procreate and so forth, there might be people smart enough to implement the ideas of you INXX-types.

 

[Brontosaurie]

And regarding transhumanism, I think that one of the main goals of it as a ideology is to elevate humans from the S-dominance that is evident in society. As ideas, N is preferable to S in a society dominated by intellectual pursuits and development aided by technology.

that's an aspect of it - human conduct becoming increasingly less preoccupied with concrete sensory input and more with ideas. but there's also the individual/collectivist aspect, in which conformist S types have an advantage since transhumanism entails not only technological progress but also progress in communication and probably a more fluid, relative conception of the self. S types seem to operate synchronously with ease (however rigid and arbitrary their explicit opinions may be when scrutinized) whereas N types subconsciously emphasize the subject/object divide (however adamant they may be that it's false and obsolete) in their way of dealing with the world.

not sure if i'm right about this just throwing it out.

 

[Cyberpunk]

that's an aspect of it - human conduct becoming increasingly less preoccupied with concrete sensory input and more with ideas. but there's also the individual/collectivist aspect, in which conformist S types have an advantage since transhumanism entails not only technological progress but also progress in communication and probably a more fluid, relative conception of the self. S types seem to operate synchronously with ease (however rigid and arbitrary their explicit opinions may be when scrutinized) whereas N types subconsciously emphasize the subject/object divide (however adamant they may be that it's false and obsolete) in their way of dealing with the world.

Yes. And then there's the problem of idealism contra realism. Sensory input seems to be inherently flawed and scientific instruments have all but replaced the human body as the observer in empirical experiments.

In the old days, as you know, scientists used sensations of matter and the surrounding world as the main mode of extracting data - taste, smell, weight and so forth - where as now science is either highly abstract and based upon purely theoretical frameworks or in such a miniscule scale that the human senses are not only inherently flawed because of their non-exactness but also limited in what they are able to distinguish from the outside world. We can't see atoms or electrons, etc.

So in that sense, if one creates a divide between sensors and intuitives, sensors have a naturally inferior position in the sense that their cognition is limited. Whereas intuitives don't lack the abilities of sensors.

 

[Montresor]

Yes. And then there's the problem of idealism contra realism. Sensory input seems to be inherently flawed and scientific instruments have all but replaced the human body as the observer in empirical experiments.

In the old days, as you know, scientists used sensations of matter and the surrounding world as the main mode of extracting data - taste, smell, weight and so forth - where as now science is either highly abstract and based upon purely theoretical frameworks or in such a miniscule scale that the human senses are not only inherently flawed because of their non-exactness but also limited in what they are able to distinguish from the outside world. We can't see atoms or electrons, etc.

So in that sense, if one creates a divide between sensors and intuitives, sensors have a naturally inferior position in the sense that their cognition is limited. Whereas intuitives don't lack the abilities of sensors.

This is really wise and insightful and I've never seen anybody's point of view quite like yours! I'm amazed at the depth and complexity of your ideas. You must be an intuitive type (wink)- I can tell because of the high level of sophistication in your spelling and punctuation.

I find it particularly enlightening that you feel that intuitive perceiving gives you a competitive advantage in this world, specifically due to the "non-exactness" of the human senses. How right you are!!

I guess the only part of your post that I second-guess at all is the final sentence which actually isn't a sentence.

 

[Cyberpunk]

This is really wise and insightful and I've never seen anybody's point of view quite like yours! I'm amazed at the depth and complexity of your ideas. You must be an intuitive type (wink)- I can tell because of the high level of sophistication in your spelling and punctuation.

I find it particularly enlightening that you feel that intuitive perceiving gives you a competitive advantage in this world, specifically due to the "non-exactness" of the human senses. How right you are!!

I guess the only part of your post that I second-guess at all is the final sentence which actually isn't a sentence.

Ah, so you're going on a roll and you're attacking me here? Have fun. And no, I doubt that anybody finds it amusing that I try so hard to prove my self-worth with advanced language and then fail at the end of my post to even create a coherent sentence. Things like that stopped being fun for most people a long time ago, on a internet far, far away in space-time. Get some social skills so you'll at least provide something to laugh at while going batshit.

 

[Brontosaurie]

This is really wise and insightful and I've never seen anybody's point of view quite like yours! I'm amazed at the depth and complexity of your ideas. You must be an intuitive type (wink)- I can tell because of the high level of sophistication in your spelling and punctuation.

I find it particularly enlightening that you feel that intuitive perceiving gives you a competitive advantage in this world, specifically due to the "non-exactness" of the human senses. How right you are!!

I guess the only part of your post that I second-guess at all is the final sentence which actually isn't a sentence.

why this VITRIOL man

 

[Montresor]

Because I simply do not agree that intuitive types "can access" the sensory ways but not the other way around.

I can't accept that bullshit. It's plain ignorance. Sorry if I don't argue like a T type.

My girlfriend is Ne=aux she can barely tie her fucking shoe.

 

[Cyberpunk]

Because I simply do not agree that intuitive types "can access" the sensory ways but not the other way around.

I can't accept that bullshit. It's plain ignorance. Sorry if I don't argue like a T type.

My girlfriend is Ne=aux she can barely tie her fucking shoe.

It's a discussion man. It wouldn't be a discussion if you agreed with me. It's funny though, it took what, 3 posts, for you to explain what you didn't agree with here. In the future, could you please just state where you disagree with me and take it from there instead of the other way around? Because I don't think it's funny when people try to attack me, and I don't appreciate the way that it becomes obvious that you think that you're smarter than me. And no matter what you might think, the way that I write here is just the way I write and if it comes across as too forced for you, I have an amazing idea for you: don't read my posts from now on. You can categorize me under "idiot" in your brain and just go on with your life.

 

[Montresor]

It's a discussion man. It wouldn't be a discussion if you agreed with me. haha that's so true! It's funny though, it took what, 3 posts, for you to explain what you didn't agree with here. This is phrased as a question again, lacking the question mark, and the answer is no, it took 2 posts. In the future, could you please just state where you disagree with me and take it from there instead of the other way around? I will be the master of my own interactions. Because I don't think it's funny when people try to attack me, and I don't appreciate the way that it becomes obvious that you think that you're smarter than me. Well then, who's the T type now? And no matter what you might think, the way that I write here is just the way I write and if it comes across as too forced for you, I have an amazing idea for you: don't read my posts from now on. You can categorize me under "idiot" in your brain and just go on with your life.

We can get along it will be okay. I'll be more open minded with your posts and try really hard to ignore the bias and terrible logic in favour of just appreciating you for who you are.

 

[Cyberpunk]

We can get along it will be okay. I'll be more open minded with your posts and try really hard to ignore the bias and terrible logic in favour of just appreciating you for who you are.

Good. Everybody's happy, and that makes me happy.

 

[Montresor]

Good. Everybody's happy, and that makes me happy.

On that note, I see now you are openly ENFP. I guess I assumed you were/thought you were INTP.

I'm going to sit in the corner and feel stupid for a while now.

 

[Brontosaurie]

On that note, I see now you are openly ENFP. I guess I assumed you were/thought you were INTP.

I'm going to sit in the corner and feel stupid for a while now.

why should this affect your response, other than the "T type" bit?

can't you expect as much of an ENFP as you can of an INTP? how much would you expect of an ESFP?

 

[Montresor]

why should this affect your response, other than the "T type" bit?

can't you expect as much of an ENFP as you can of an INTP? how much would you expect of an ESFP?

Actually, the "T-type" bit was the only affected portion.

I could rant for 3 days about ESFP right now because I'm living in a hotel 5 days a week working out of town and it seems like I'm surrounded by ESFPs. You want batshit? They're batshit. I live with them.

My home consists of an INFP gf and INTJ roommate and I can't get far enough away from ESFP on weekends.

Ohhh are you highlighting my own bias and poor logic? It's there. Acknowledged.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Ohhh are you highlighting my own bias and poor logic? It's there. Acknowledged.

mostly the hypocrisy in ranking types while being pissed off at other people for ranking types.

honestly i think you're overreacting, and i don't think you'd respond so fiercely if the claim in question (N>S) was put forth by an older member.

 

[Montresor]

mostly the hypocrisy in ranking types while being pissed off at other people for ranking types.

Yes I agree there is this hypocrisy. What I disagree with is that I'm "pissed off" because somebody is "ranking types". I'm just being critical of the dumb things she's posting like (PARAPHRASE) "more advanced" "having all the abilities" et c.

honestly i think you're overreacting, and i don't think you'd respond so fiercely if the claim in question (N>S) was put forth by an older member.

Oh yeah?

Bullshit.

If Architect walked in here and said that he has all the abilities of the sensor whilst they have none of his own, I would spiral into Te-grip posting so fast it would literally appear I was going down in flames.

Ideas stand on their own merit. It has nothing to do with who posted it. Go ahead and say something stupid yourself (personally I don't think you can) and we'll see what I have to say back.

 

[Cyberpunk]

Well, let's just agree with the fact that I>E. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Black Rose]

Well, let's just agree with the fact that I>E. I think we can all agree on that.

I thought all functions were equal and share both in their opposites?