• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Why MBTI is bullshit pseudoscience.

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 9:24 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,182
-->
I am kind of shocked by this revelation. For my entire time on intpf, I thought there were active mods who did not post but hung around
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
It depends what is the objective of the typology and what is the objective of person.
Well not that it is all that helpful to your objective of understanding, but if we assign a universal objective value to everything, then it doesn't really matter what a person's subjective objective is because the value is independent from someone's awareness and intentions.

A hammer might be really valuable in a situation, but I will never use it if we don't have the concept of a hammer or it doesn't occur to us to use it.

So by that same token, IQ and MBTI might have an infinite number of useful applications, it's simply a matter of not knowing.

The illumination of a theory in no way illuminates how it can be applied appropriately. Even if there are only 1-2 practical certain applications, they might be very useful.

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.
No personality exists in a vacuum. Boys are more likely to get hobby's and become distracted with something else and the chances of that being school are slim when fucking dinosaurs exist. Meanwhile women might realize that they will be vulnerable for the rest of their lives, more so than men.


Rarely do people invest into personality and think, ah and what about non career stuff, or general stuff overall.
Work consumes our lives. We would only be able to tell anything concrete when there is a large population of people gathered some activity. If I recall, MBTI has been supposedly proven to not really be effective in the work environment. Though I am too lazy to look into it, and I'm pretty sure most organizational applications of psychological theories fail anyways.

How many of the things we create are failed to be use because we're dumb? I remember something about how we discovered that applying pressure to wound would stop bleeding, and then we forgot you could do that for maybe hundreds of years before we realized that we could do that to stop bleeding. I need the source, but I'm certain it was a reputable one.
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 11:54 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
383
-->
I think if you use MBTI as a gateway to delving into philosophical ideas about how humans interpret and understand reality, then it becomes a nice segway into realizing that consciousness is a set of biases and filters; ideas that are extremely useful in psychology for helping people better understand the nature of their consciousness, and even consciousness in general.
 

Puffy

Inner mounting flame
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
3,275
-->
Location
Right here
Nobody!! Hahahaha

This ship has no captain. We are a perfect anarchic society.
We’re certainly demonstrating why the rest of society should follow suit lol :applause:

As an aside I suppose admin only exists where there’s no anarchy :confused:
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
I think if you use MBTI as a gateway to delving into philosophical ideas about how humans interpret and understand reality, then it becomes a nice segway into realizing that consciousness is a set of biases and filters; ideas that are extremely useful in psychology for helping people better understand the nature of their consciousness, and even consciousness in general.
Pretty much, it's kinda like coding languages if you think about it

Most of what people code with use with uses shorthand that is abstracted to a high degree and is thus limiting. It's still a useful way to acclimate yourself for future learning if you want to try to learn the architecture of human reasoning later on. Like using DOS over python. Talking directly with the computer vs talking with a interpreter between you.

Not a one-one comparison because there is no coherent logical structure that is consistent like a language, but I think the analogy sticks, though the utility doesn't.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 9:24 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,182
-->
Pretty much, it's kinda like coding languages if you think about it
All major coding langauges some DSLs are turing complete. That means that you will arrive at the same result for same input. If you consider this as a metaphor, psychology and sociology can arrive at the same conclusion with the same input although with different interpretations. MBTI is not at all turing complete. It is it's own mess - a non-turing complete DSL that has no use besides its own domain. In real life this means domain of horoscope.
 

Rook

enter text
Local time
Today 6:54 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,452
-->
Location
look at flag
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).
yeah i get you it's like tracing the pattern of beans if there are trillions of beans. you'll get a general idea of coloration and form, and genetically what a bean is, but your group sample will always be so small that you can't accurately predict splotch-patternings. maybe divide them simply(logically) into 'whole', '1st quadrant' 'diagonal-moebius' etc. etc. but to little practical purpose, maybe for the ease of data storage and transfer, codexification.

some people change month by month, some can change after thirty years(reborn christians, ex-junkies etc.). sometimes these changes can be radical, with some humans capable of transversing vastly different emotional planes in matters of days, hours. in life-or-death situations such behaviour is more common in terms of fear, anger, sorrow, pain, hyper-focus, bloodlust, love and so on as the person rapidly adjusts to changing circumstances. some folk won't bat an eye though and seeing a dog hit by a car registers the same to them as seeing a leaf fall to the ground. and even then there are variations, maybe a cold-ass motherfucker really relaxes around cats, while being very unreachable when interacting with their own species.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
Pretty much, it's kinda like coding languages if you think about it
All major coding langauges some DSLs are turing complete. That means that you will arrive at the same result for same input. If you consider this as a metaphor, psychology and sociology can arrive at the same conclusion with the same input although with different interpretations. MBTI is not at all turing complete. It is it's own mess - a non-turing complete DSL that has no use besides its own domain. In real life this means domain of horoscope.
Of course I don't mean it as a serious analogy. The point is what these representations mean we have to do to be effective.

Writing ones and zeros in assembly vs writing functions and variables from preprepared libraries like go or python.

Treating neurosis via genome vs treating neurosis via cognitive function appraisal.

Brain is a great deal more complex. I'm not trying to save mbti, But since you say it's not turning complete I'm going to have to ask you to explain why, since I'm not sure there's any terminal where we can test it out and even then we could just call it incomplete so someone has to develop it. I will say I'm mostly referring to psychoanalytical theories in general not this spinoff.

Can you tell me something similar between horoscope and MBTI
I went down a rabbit hole on YouTube and it seems like it's just assigning personality traits by proxy of celestial objects. Very ambitious.

Also psychological astrologist exist.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 9:24 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,182
-->
Brain is a great deal more complex. I'm not trying to save mbti, But since you say it's not turning complete I'm going to have to ask you to explain why, since I'm not sure there's any terminal where we can test it out and even then we could just call it incomplete so someone has to develop it.
I am also being purely metaphorical. But I had to put another bullet into the already bullet-riddled body xD
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
Pretty much, it's kinda like coding languages if you think about it
All major coding langauges some DSLs are turing complete. That means that you will arrive at the same result for same input. If you consider this as a metaphor, psychology and sociology can arrive at the same conclusion with the same input although with different interpretations. MBTI is not at all turing complete. It is it's own mess - a non-turing complete DSL that has no use besides its own domain. In real life this means domain of horoscope.
Different coding languages exist, because C works better for some things, while Java works better for other things. Different languages process the same data in different ways, using different-built-in algorithms, which gives each language greater speed, flexibility and reliability in some things, and less in others.

If MBTI types are analogous to different coding languages, then all MBTI types will arrive at the same understanding eventually. But due to the fact that they process the same data differently, interim decisions will differ, depending on which factors they focus in on first.

If humans have a type, then you could compare that to a website that was written in a particular programming langage.

Then knowing one's type, is simply a matter of identifying the coding language of the program on an active website.

But almost all coding languages that are still being used, have web capabilities, because so many millions of people & organisations need/want a website. So you tell which language is used, by the quirks that are unique to that language.

Once you know the language, you know all of the major quirks/eccentricities that the language causes on websites.

Once you know all of the website's eccentricities, you know what tricks you have to use to not fall foul of those eccentricities and even benefit from them.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
Pretty much, it's kinda like coding languages if you think about it
All major coding langauges some DSLs are turing complete. That means that you will arrive at the same result for same input. If you consider this as a metaphor, psychology and sociology can arrive at the same conclusion with the same input although with different interpretations. MBTI is not at all turing complete. It is it's own mess - a non-turing complete DSL that has no use besides its own domain. In real life this means domain of horoscope.
Different coding languages exist, because C works better for some things, while Java works better for other things. Different languages process the same data in different ways, using different-built-in algorithms, which gives each language greater speed, flexibility and reliability in some things, and less in others.

If MBTI types are analogous to different coding languages, then all MBTI types will arrive at the same understanding eventually. But due to the fact that they process the same data differently, interim decisions will differ, depending on which factors they focus in on first.

If humans have a type, then you could compare that to a website that was written in a particular programming langage.

Then knowing one's type, is simply a matter of identifying the coding language of the program on an active website.

But almost all coding languages that are still being used, have web capabilities, because so many millions of people & organisations need/want a website. So you tell which language is used, by the quirks that are unique to that language.

Once you know the language, you know all of the major quirks/eccentricities that the language causes on websites.

Once you know all of the website's eccentricities, you know what tricks you have to use to not fall foul of those eccentricities and even benefit from them.

Different coding languages exist but they all speak to the computer through the same method. It's not like the language itself creates code, it's using code that is already there and the person that created it had specific use cases in mind and designed for that according to their likeness.

The problem with typing I think what some people are missing is that it's a problem because the environment is too complex and dynamic, meanwhile someone's intentions are also the same thing. These problems far outweigh anything else. It's too abstract and ambitious to actually connect to something that means anything to most people.

Big five on the other hand is broad questions that gives you broad traits that can be easily observed. It just removes the problem of having to observe them in favor of self-reporting.

That being said, the languages that anyone individual are unobservable, so learning the language of Jungs cognitive functions would likely be a lengthy process and effort of interviews and tests. Meanwhile the Big Five does it's job and then you have a somewhat accurate picture of what to expect form the person.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Different coding languages exist but they all speak to the computer through the same method. It's not like the language itself creates code, it's using code that is already there and the person that created it had specific use cases in mind and designed for that according to their likeness.

Maybe because almost all computers have same architecture and so all programs were made to fit that architecture.
Pretty sure electric cars running on batteries will never run on diesel.
Unless you install a diesel tank.
Or what is your point?
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Big five on the other hand is broad questions that gives you broad traits that can be easily observed.
Is everything easily observed default personality?
The way I understand it BIG FIVE wanted traits that are common across all cultures.
MBTI did not have this aim, but had a specific culture bias, with intention to help people to understand relationships and career choices.
Big Five aims at broader range that is, but your personality is both inborn, but result of culture specific traits associated with experience.
IF you want to know a person you either want to know their neurology, or you want to know their neurology and other things that were not inborn, but are part of who they are.
Is thus more important to know neurology only or do you want a personality that emerged from inborn traits as well?

Or is the bias that personality is something only inborn and the rest is not you, the key here. If that is so, is it helpful to look at a pattern that points to neurology only?
Is that good or bad.
To me neurology might be important in order to know how we respond and act, but is it really the key to know who we are?
Is our behavior merely and always part of only neurology or is the experience and knowledge and culture and upbringing going to show a different pattern?

But then is an INTP form korea or japan different from INTP in US or Namibia or Narnia?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
Maybe because almost all computers have same architecture and so all programs were made to fit that architecture.
Pretty sure electric cars running on batteries will never run on diesel.
Unless you install a diesel tank.
Or what is your point?
Well humans have a difference of DNA of like 0.1 percent

Seeing as personality is something that forms at the very top of a biological system, altering the organism through psychology for instance is a top-down approach.

Hypothetically altering the genome is a bottom-up approach to changing something about the ogranism. The genome makes the base of what it means to be human.

Though it shouldn't be necessary to alter the genome, because we all share most of our genes, we should be able to achieve 99.9% of what anyone else can do for example.

So I'm just saying that I see the functions as an attempt to catalogue sub-behaviors/personalities of biology of an organism. If based on the right concepts, the ideas MBTI is built off of I think still have a lot of potential to be applied usefully. Just that it's a lengthy extrapolative process. I'm sure it would be too impractical for a person to consciously subsume all psychological tech though, but nobody needs to know everything, if you see what I mean.

Is everything easily observed default personality?
The way I understand it BIG FIVE wanted traits that are common across all cultures.
MBTI did not have this aim, but had a specific culture bias, with intention to help people to understand relationships and career choices.
Big Five aims at broader range that is, but your personality is both inborn, but result of culture specific traits associated with experience.
IF you want to know a person you either want to know their neurology, or you want to know their neurology and other things that were not inborn, but are part of who they are.
Is thus more important to know neurology only or do you want a personality that emerged from inborn traits as well?

Or is the bias that personality is something only inborn and the rest is not you, the key here. If that is so, is it helpful to look at a pattern that points to neurology only?
Is that good or bad.
To me neurology might be important in order to know how we respond and act, but is it really the key to know who we are?
Is our behavior merely and always part of only neurology or is the experience and knowledge and culture and upbringing going to show a different pattern?

But then is an INTP form korea or japan different from INTP in US or Namibia or Narnia?
Just continuing off what I wrote already, I'm saying that you can interface with someone and perhaps with some double blind science you can get an approximation how their brain, neurology, is formed via Jungs cognitive functions.

For me the added benefit from this cognitive function approach is that with discovery of the persons situations and reactions to the stimuli, you have a chance to dismantle constructs they have that are maladaptive.

Psychiatry completely misses the last paragraph I have here. They will probe for how your neurology is formed with questions, much like Big Five, and then throw pills at you so you can figure out the rest or pay them more for separate consultations. In and out in 10 minutes and a bunch of drugs.

A test I understand, but a human, ha.

--

To repond to what you actually wrote, it is bad to look only at neurology. It's like looking at an autobahn/highway where accidents are prone to happen and just assuming that the best solution for that is always X, or Y. The issue with these highways is that unless they, or the people operating vehicles on them change, once the solution, the drug is gone, you will have the same problem again. Doctors don't want to eat up into their own paycheck by helping you confront your neurology directly.

Let's not forget how hard it is for us to get to a concept that is not culturally biased like Big Five, and hope that a individual Doctor be just as unbiased by cultural realities they experienced their whole lives.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
So I'm just saying that I see the functions as an attempt to catalogue sub-behaviors/personalities of biology of an organism. If based on the right concepts, the ideas MBTI is built off of I think still have a lot of potential to be applied usefully. Just that it's a lengthy extrapolative process. I'm sure it would be too impractical for a person to consciously subsume all psychological tech though, but nobody needs to know everything, if you see what I mean.
No I don't, because you aren't specifically talking about what I was saying.
You are making an entirely different point.
So that means I missed your point with my response, too.
So to me MBTI is typology. Period. DNA is not part of it.
Technology ?
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
Different coding languages exist but they all speak to the computer through the same method. It's not like the language itself creates code, it's using code that is already there and the person that created it had specific use cases in mind and designed for that according to their likeness.
Coded in low-level assembler for Motorola 6502 and Intel Zilog chips. They work differently, and use different addressing modes and different flags. Lots of tasks need to be coded in different ways.

Coded in several high-level languages. They all have their quirks. Python is very powerful & flexible, but is a memory hog. C gives tight control over memory, but is prone to memory leaks. SQL is fantastic at processing large datasets, but not very good at processing records 1-by-1. XSLT is fantastic at processing event-cascade functionality.

Different server programs that support the same language, work differently and have different syntax, and different quirks, like the differences between Microsoft SQL Server and MySQL.

Each OS has their quirks, which also affects how the code works. On Windows machines, you have to make sure the settings are done just right, before the program begins, or it tends to fall over. Macs and Linux are more flexible, but usually require a greater usage of CLI (command line instructions).

They all do roughly the same things, but in a different order. Some will check if a file exists, before trying to open it. Others will try to open the file, and then generate an exception if the file cannot be found by the filesystem.

This matters. In some environments, the file itself is often not present, and so the first is necessary. The 2nd causes many exceptions, and exceptions eat memory, leading to a big decrease in performance and a vast increase in memory usage.

In other situations, there are many files that need to be read, but where most were created already. So checking if the file exists every single time, makes a small increase in execution time, many times over, when it's very rare for the file to not exist, which makes a big decrease in performance.

Also, if you are debugging, and you stop the code in mid-routine, to check for interim values, since the order of calculations is different, the interim results can be extremely different, even if the end result is identical, as there are many different paths from the same starting point to the same destination.

The problem with typing I think what some people are missing is that it's a problem because the environment is too complex and dynamic, meanwhile someone's intentions are also the same thing. These problems far outweigh anything else. It's too abstract and ambitious to actually connect to something that means anything to most people.
Typing is simply about observing commonalities amongst certain subsets of humanity, that are independent of the more observable characteristics that you mentioned.

It's common for stars to make unusual demands for their dressing-room or they won't go on. But if you know the types of things that particular star is likely to be demanding about, it will be very easy to please the star and ensure they will go out on stage and perform.

Big five on the other hand is broad questions that gives you broad traits that can be easily observed. It just removes the problem of having to observe them in favor of self-reporting.
1) Big Five is likely to correlate to your observations when the subject is accurate, objective, and impartial about his/her own traits.

When the subject is not that precise about what they observe in general, or when their perspectives are biased by their preconceptions, their prejudgements, their prejudices and their interpretations of what they observed, and when they embellish their own positives and downplay their negatives, or even just embellish their traits that they think are positives and downplay their traits that they think are negatives, then there's likely to be a difference between Big Five and your observations.

The more those factors differ from a completely objective, incredibly precise, and completely impartial, perfectly unemotional robot, the more of a difference you can expect to see.

MBTI self-reporting has the same problem, which often results in mistyping.

2) MBTI focusses on traits, e.g. an ESTP loves to keep busy. An INTJ works in fits and bursts, but everything he does works above requirements.

In the 1940s, you might have to employ 2 women as car mechanics. If one is an ESTP and the other an INTJ, you give all the regular work to the ESTP so he can keep fixing things. The occasional really difficult jobs that come in unexpectedly go to the INTJ.

3) Big Five also seems to focus on character traits, like openness to experience, consciensciousness, agreeableness, etc. These are things that people would say anyone CAN do, and everyone SHOULD do. They are moral choices or moral habits.

In the 2010s and on, companies have hundreds of applicants for the same job via the internet. Their initial goal is to find ways to whittle down the numbers to a shortlist of 5 candidates to interview. So if they put out an ad for 2 new car mechanics, they shortlist the candidates with high consciensciousness, and 2 INTJs get the jobs.

The INTJs both fight over who gets the really difficult jobs, and moan about all the boring jobs they have to keep doing. Both get sick of it, and leave to start their own businesses. So every few years, the company needs to look for new car mechanics to employ.

The ESTPs are still on the unemployment line, drinking all day because they have nothing to do, and getting into fights at night.

That being said, the languages that anyone individual are unobservable, so learning the language of Jungs cognitive functions would likely be a lengthy process and effort of interviews and tests.
You can learn them easily, simply by appreciating that Jung is describing something abstract, and so not speaking directly, but using analogies.

Even morons seem to understand analogies very easily.

Meanwhile the Big Five does it's job and then you have a somewhat accurate picture of what to expect form the person.
Yes, except no. You know the INTJ is going to be more conscienscious than the ESTP.

You don't know that he works in fits and bursts, and expects everyone to work at 100% efficiency and 100% competency, which p*sses off all your clients.

That type of efficiency is very useful for the few really difficult jobs.

But for 80% of your work, it causes the company to project unpredictability, which makes people emotionally uncomfortable, and more comfortable with a different company.

After a while, the manager of the car mechanics department starts realising that the ESTP car mechanics are what you want, and he starts telling the board that Big Five is useless. But they won't listen to him, because very expensive management consultant said they need it.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Just continuing off what I wrote already, I'm saying that you can interface with someone and perhaps with some double blind science you can get an approximation how their brain, neurology, is formed via Jungs cognitive functions.

For me the added benefit from this cognitive function approach is that with discovery of the persons situations and reactions to the stimuli, you have a chance to dismantle constructs they have that are maladaptive.

Psychiatry completely misses the last paragraph I have here. They will probe for how your neurology is formed with questions, much like Big Five, and then throw pills at you so you can figure out the rest or pay them more for separate consultations. In and out in 10 minutes and a bunch of drugs.

A test I understand, but a human, ha.
MBTI is personality typology. It certainly does tell you something.
Psychiatry throws pills at people, because that is easier and seemingly more efficient.
Its not necessarily better, but if your whole industry has a history of throwing pills at people eventually you are going to do just that, because that is how you train people.
Simply there are no alternatives to using pills. Whether that is good or bad is besides the point. It simply is that way, because no one looks for different approach.
Kind of like its easier to do heart transplants today than actually preventing heat disease.
Even if heart transplant is horrible thing and sometimes fatal and the operation is super difficult the actual operation is something we know how to do, yet we still cannot seem to figure out how to solve minor problems like heart problems.

MBTI is at best soft science, but some call it pseudo science, because it has limitations and is not super accurate.

Also I read psychology for sometime and it seems to me what constitutes maladaptive is really vague and somewhat less scientific than say MBTI.

For instance all behaviors can be maladaptive.
And yet all of them are also considered good behaviors.
So who decides when and where the behaviors are maladaptive and good behaviors and on what reasoning?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
So I'm just saying that I see the functions as an attempt to catalogue sub-behaviors/personalities of biology of an organism. If based on the right concepts, the ideas MBTI is built off of I think still have a lot of potential to be applied usefully. Just that it's a lengthy extrapolative process. I'm sure it would be too impractical for a person to consciously subsume all psychological tech though, but nobody needs to know everything, if you see what I mean.
No I don't, because you aren't specifically talking about what I was saying.
You are making an entirely different point.
So that means I missed your point with my response, too.
So to me MBTI is typology. Period. DNA is not part of it.
Technology ?
I'm not sure how to directly address what I'm talking about.

IQ for example can be typed as a thinking function. But this is not so is it? Lots of processes the brain actually does use sensory processing regions in the brain. So all functions are required to think. These cognitive functions as typology are almost useless, but being used to map out, in relation to the brain how people approach life, and thus have relationships, solve problems, experience something new.


It's kinda like how people want to make things sound complicated so that they can have more job security. I think that's the approach things have taken. No doubt, don't get me wrong I am not qualified to make that assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised due to how free it is to talk to someone vs how expensive it is to be able to give someone a compound that was synthesized or extracted from a plant.


Psychiatry throws pills at people, because that is easier and seemingly more efficient.
Its not necessarily better, but if your whole industry has a history of throwing pills at people eventually you are going to do just that, because that is how you train people.
Simply there are no alternatives to using pills. Whether that is good or bad is besides the point. It simply is that way, because no one looks for different approach.
Kind of like its easier to do heart transplants today than actually preventing heat disease.
Even if heart transplant is horrible thing and sometimes fatal and the operation is super difficult the actual operation is something we know how to do, yet we still cannot seem to figure out how to solve minor problems like heart problems.
I think it does wonders for people that are already functional and have been most of their life. The less that is true the less I think drugs really do much of anything.

If you lack many functions you need more intensive therapy at that point maybe going in over once a week to see progress within a year.

MBTI is at best soft science, but some call it pseudo science, because it has limitations and is not super accurate.

Also I read psychology for sometime and it seems to me what constitutes maladaptive is really vague and somewhat less scientific than say MBTI.

For instance all behaviors can be maladaptive.
And yet all of them are also considered good behaviors.
So who decides when and where the behaviors are maladaptive and good behaviors and on what reasoning?
Agreed. Personality wise it's not that predictive. It was based off of a tool that was for reflection and analysis not meant to describe or predict much of anything.

Yes, according to goal anything can be maladaptive. Or maybe a more efficient behavior makes all other behaviors maladaptive.

I used put tech instead of tool. These questions that get an idea of neurology I think is a psychological tool/technology we've developed. It has to work for something useful in order for most people to consider it science.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
Meanwhile the Big Five does it's job and then you have a somewhat accurate picture of what to expect form the person.
Yes, except no. You know the INTJ is going to be more conscienscious than the ESTP.

You don't know that he works in fits and bursts, and expects everyone to work at 100% efficiency and 100% competency, which p*sses off all your clients.

That type of efficiency is very useful for the few really difficult jobs.

But for 80% of your work, it causes the company to project unpredictability, which makes people emotionally uncomfortable, and more comfortable with a different company.

After a while, the manager of the car mechanics department starts realising that the ESTP car mechanics are what you want, and he starts telling the board that Big Five is useless. But they won't listen to him, because very expensive management consultant said they need it.
Ultimately it's applications of the concept that matters. I can use both and do really well

The thing is you can't break down sensing into sub categories you can only break it down into things you are sensing. So I can say I have difficulties with deciphering auditory information, but visual information is easy. But these are tasks.

Big-five are traits, tendencies of the person. Can be broken down into things like industriousness and intellectualism for consciounscioutness and openness.

I disagree, you can be a lazy INTJ, though still be a perfectionist.

Not trying to make it relevant, I'm just saying that it is, simply by nature of trying to encapsulate meta-structures of the brain. The problem is that hardly anyone can look at a region of the brain and conclude what that region partakes in.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
I'm not sure how to directly address what I'm talking about.

IQ for example can be typed as a thinking function. But this is not so is it? Lots of processes the brain actually does use sensory processing regions in the brain. So all functions are required to think. These cognitive functions as typology are almost useless, but being used to map out, in relation to the brain how people approach life, and thus have relationships, solve problems, experience something new.


It's kinda like how people want to make things sound complicated so that they can have more job security. I think that's the approach things have taken. No doubt, don't get me wrong I am not qualified to make that assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised due to how free it is to talk to someone vs how expensive it is to be able to give someone a compound that was synthesized or extracted from a plant.
No clue what you are talking about. But I am not new here so keep going maybe it might make sense someday.

I think it does wonders for people that are already functional and have been most of their life. The less that is true the less I think drugs really do much of anything.

If you lack many functions you need more intensive therapy at that point maybe going in over once a week to see progress within a year.
Well maybe relying to psychiatry is not good for people.
I went to psychiatrist.
It did not help.
It did not necessarily make things worse either.
Sometimes it moderately help, but generally long term it simply meant the issue is same. The pills had major side effects, but trusting doctors I thought the side effects are OK, after all side effects are common, unfortunately the cost benefit of side effect is that you are really miserable sometimes.
I feel much better not dealing with pills.

Agreed. Personality wise it's not that predictive. It was based off of a tool that was for reflection and analysis not meant to describe or predict much of anything.

Yes, according to goal anything can be maladaptive. Or maybe a more efficient behavior makes all other behaviors maladaptive.

I used put tech instead of tool. These questions that get an idea of neurology I think is a psychological tool/technology we've developed. It has to work for something useful in order for most people to consider it science.
Its not really adaptation realistically to adapt either.
Each adaptive behavior costs effort.
Its only adaptive if the effort yields good results.
To my experience, most adaptations that psychologist say are good, seem to be very little use.
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 11:54 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
383
-->
Well maybe relying to psychiatry is not good for people.
I went to psychiatrist.
It did not help.
It did not necessarily make things worse either.
Sometimes it moderately help, but generally long term it simply meant the issue is same. The pills had major side effects, but trusting doctors I thought the side effects are OK, after all side effects are common, unfortunately the cost benefit of side effect is that you are really miserable sometimes.
I feel much better not dealing with pills.
They now have more pills that deal with the side-effects of the other pills. Now people that were abused by psychiatry and developed Tardive Dyskinesia from their psychiatric drugs can take another pill to deal with that problem, but not cure it. Gotta love capitalism. A subscription plan is always more profitable than a flat fee, you know. It's even in video games now...
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
Ultimately it's applications of the concept that matters. I can use both and do really well
Great for you. I can code in multiple languages. I have friends who can fix lots of different types of cars. Not much help to most people, though, not unless someone teaches everyone how to use both and do really well.

The thing is you can't break down sensing into sub categories
That was on purpose.

Humans are highly adaptive. A human can run through a minefield if he knows where the mines are. But a human will go very slowly through a minefield, if he doesn't know where the mines are.

The known and the unknown require very different cognitive approaches, that each improve with time and experience.

As a result, most humans tend to specialise in this area. They can physically do both. But they do much better when they become expert in one, rather than be mediocre at both.

Many jobs require a mix of both, and so do some tasks. If you don't give Sensors support when dealing with the unfamiliar, or you don't give Intuitives support when dealing with the familiar, you get very poor results.

If you don't address that naturally-occuring division, you're playing pot luck with human productivity.

you can only break it down into things you are sensing. So I can say I have difficulties with deciphering auditory information, but visual information is easy. But these are tasks.
I have the same problem. They affect my communications and my recall. Visually, I'm a much clearer communicator, than aurally, which in turn affects my work.

But most people think that S/N is made-up, and people who are good with things they know well, can also handle things they don't know well.

So when someone tells people that he finds visual information easy to decipher, but not things he hears aurally, those people often think it's like the S/N dichotomy, think it's just BS, and tell him instructions aurally anyway. Then when things blow up, they blame him and say that he must be incompetent or negligent.

When you're talking to someone who really does believe things like S/N and HSP are real, or has become convinced they're real, if you tell them you're better visually than aurally, then anything important is sent to you as a text or an email, and everything suddenly keeps working when you're dealing with that person.

Big-five are traits, tendencies of the person. Can be broken down into things like industriousness and intellectualism for consciounscioutness and openness.
Yes, and in 1500 years, scientists will have done experiments to test what clusters with what, and then we'll have a Big Five system that match people's experiences, and thus is of benefit.

Right now, we have people who are industrious to different degrees, in different situations.

We also have:
  • people who like being intellectual and don't mind being perceived that way,
  • pseudo-intellectuals who like being thought of as intellectual but don't actually like being intellectual,
  • people who like reading and thinking but hate to be called "clever", and
  • meatheads who are happy to mess around and be perceived that way.
The combinations mean that we often get situations where someone industrious and intellectual is extremely closed-minded and lazy.

We also often get situations where someone very un-industrious and very un-intellectual, is very open-minded and hardworking.

I disagree, you can be a lazy INTJ, though still be a perfectionist.
Yes, you can. But the INTJ will still be scored as very conscienscious in a Big Five test. Efficient and a high achiever is how INTJs usually perceive themselves from tip to toe, and so that would show up very highly in tests that rely on self-reporting.

Not trying to make it relevant, I'm just saying that it is, simply by nature of trying to encapsulate meta-structures of the brain. The problem is that hardly anyone can look at a region of the brain and conclude what that region partakes in.
The brain itself is one organ. It has one protective outer shell called the skull that covers the whole region like a bowling ball.

Trying to understand the purpose of different regions of the brain, is like trying to figure out the purpose of the passenger-side wing-mirror that differs from the purpose of the driver-side wing-mirror.
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 11:54 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
383
-->
What isn't bullshit though? rite
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
No clue what you are talking about. But I am not new here so keep going maybe it might make sense someday.
I will, my stance on insanity is that if you can't explain it so that others can understand you are having an insanity.

The central focus that validates what I'm talking about is that meditation, behavior of some kind effects the brains structure without the use of medication at all.

I guess with the knowledge that emotional regulation is one of the brains most advanced tasks, something like compassion meditation might be a good thing to do? I suppose it might also make your emotions more uncontrolable so I don't know.

We also have:
  • people who like being intellectual and don't mind being perceived that way,
  • pseudo-intellectuals who like being thought of as intellectual but don't actually like being intellectual,
  • people who like reading and thinking but hate to be called "clever", and
  • meatheads who are happy to mess around and be perceived that way.
Not that you asked but I'm low in enthusiasm and high in intellectualism. Or if you're a human you'd say something like, I hate spending the energy to read, but I understand the value of knowledge. I have a library of resources I buy or collect and dip my toes in periodically, and when something comes along to that motivates me to refresh or dive deeper is when I do most of my learning. I also have been diagnosed with ADHD so that's likely a factor.

This tpying is useful because it can be broadly applicable with everyday language. ADHD is sometimes a emotional disorder? Then we have to look at feelings and follow that thread where it leads us.

Big Five might say someone with ADHD is a neurotic, but that doesn't paint a picture much does it? I feel it's much more helpful to look at these functions abstractly then to assign statistical points to someone so that in the end you can use a list of predesigned techniques on them like they're a piece of meat and Dr. Butcher trying to cut the right parts of it correctly.

It's layers and layers of complexity that subverts the humanity of the individual and puts more flagrant utility of the practitioners. More power to them, but the this subversion will come with it's costs. Though perhaps in 1500 years it will also make people come in and out of a couple hours of therapy and be cured. Not today it's not.

Not trying to make it relevant, I'm just saying that it is, simply by nature of trying to encapsulate meta-structures of the brain. The problem is that hardly anyone can look at a region of the brain and conclude what that region partakes in.
The brain itself is one organ. It has one protective outer shell called the skull that covers the whole region like a bowling ball.

Trying to understand the purpose of different regions of the brain, is like trying to figure out the purpose of the passenger-side wing-mirror that differs from the purpose of the driver-side wing-mirror.

You must mean with visual observation correct? We have many maps and science to backup everything the brain does. We know pathways of information, relays, critical points of processing. How the inside center differs from the outer cortex. It's not just one organ, it's part of an organ system. Eyeballs are also part of the brain colloquially now I believe.

279939303_1479940762463626_5375758016182050036_n.jpg
279584240_716583869386887_3883991472116463303_n.jpg
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
This tpying is useful because it can be broadly applicable with everyday language. ADHD is sometimes a emotional disorder? Then we have to look at feelings and follow that thread where it leads us.
Yeah I noticed that negative feedback, but also positive feedback can be a problem.
It seems odd that positive feedback that most people see as motivating is not my case, though negative feedback tends to be good or bad depending.
But then is it not what makes people individuals.
Not everyone is motivated by the same thing?

But isn't motivation partly learned?
I mean logically if stuff you do leads to bigger problems then why would you learn anything?
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 9:24 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,182
-->
1652323944285.png


1652324023453.png


1652324177857.png
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 9:24 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,182
-->
Some more cringe:

This should sum up why MBTI is, in @ZenRaiden's lovely words - A bullshit pseudoscience PERIOD
 

Attachments

  • 1652324468326.png
    1652324468326.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 57

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 9:24 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,182
-->
Can I ask what you type as? I feel like you're an ISTJ. I don't see how you can be Ti dom with an Ne auxiliary (INTP). Si/Te makes much more sense to me.
Why are asking this in this thread? I laughed after reading this question.

Now, you also got me curious, my MBTI waning addiction is tingling again...
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
I will, my stance on insanity is that if you can't explain it so that others can understand you are having an insanity.
I have heard from others, that if you can't explain something to anyone else, then there's no proof that you understand it. So in that case, there's no reason to believe you.

But most people would have a hard time understanding the complexities of modern physics. So does that mean that anyone who believes in physics is insane?

The central focus that validates what I'm talking about is that meditation, behavior of some kind effects the brains structure without the use of medication at all.

I guess with the knowledge that emotional regulation is one of the brains most advanced tasks, something like compassion meditation might be a good thing to do? I suppose it might also make your emotions more uncontrolable so I don't know.
Ironically, having done 2 years of group therapy that specifically was devoted to emotional regulation, the amount of intelligence and skill you need to do emotional regulation, is miniscule.

Not that you asked but I'm low in enthusiasm and high in intellectualism. Or if you're a human you'd say something like, I hate spending the energy to read, but I understand the value of knowledge.
If a morbidly obese person says they value their health, but not enough to do anything about it, would you say they value their health or not?

I have a library of resources I buy or collect and dip my toes in periodically, and when something comes along to that motivates me to refresh or dive deeper is when I do most of my learning. I also have been diagnosed with ADHD so that's likely a factor.

This tpying is useful because it can be broadly applicable with everyday language. ADHD is sometimes a emotional disorder? Then we have to look at feelings and follow that thread where it leads us.
At one time, a diagnosis of ADHD was like an educational death sentence. People would assume that those with ADHD had no capacity to learn anything.

So whether ADHD typing is useful or not, all depends on how the diagnosis is treated, what help, support, training & encouragement is provided, and how society has been encouraged to view those with ADHD.

Big Five might say someone with ADHD is a neurotic, but that doesn't paint a picture much does it?
They'd be more likely to say the person has extremely high openness, extremely low consciensciousness, and extremely low agreeableness (because they refuse to pay attention to others for long, even if that makes things difficult for everyone else).

I feel it's much more helpful to look at these functions abstractly then to assign statistical points to someone so that in the end you can use a list of predesigned techniques on them like they're a piece of meat and Dr. Butcher trying to cut the right parts of it correctly.
Se-doms much resemble those with ADHD. Se-users prefer to vary their activities. So Se-doms vary their activities, and Si-doms don't.

But everyone is supposed to be "agreeable", "open to new experiences", and "conscienscious". Everyone has to become the same.

It's layers and layers of complexity that subverts the humanity of the individual and puts more flagrant utility of the practitioners. More power to them, but the this subversion will come with it's costs.
I don't quite know what you're saying, if you're talking about MBTI, Big Five, HEXACO, or something else, and if you're saying that that thing is good or bad.

Though perhaps in 1500 years it will also make people come in and out of a couple hours of therapy and be cured. Not today it's not.
It could, though. We have a LOT of data about different clinical therapies, and their results in different subjects. We even know which therapies work well on which subjects. E.G. CBT is great for depression and anxiety, and DBT is great for emotional dysregulation, and BPD.

However, 10% of the country has a mental illness serious enough to prevent them from working, which is bad for a country with more jobs than people, but great for a country with more people than jobs, i.e. countries with a positive unemployment rate.


You must mean with visual observation correct? We have many maps and science to backup everything the brain does. We know pathways of information, relays, critical points of processing. How the inside center differs from the outer cortex. It's not just one organ, it's part of an organ system. Eyeballs are also part of the brain colloquially now I believe.
I don't recall anyone saying they've figured out the part of the brain that causes ADHD, or kleptomania, or paedophilia, so that they can have those parts of the brain removed, and no longer have a problem.

I recall scientists did studies to find the part of the brain the causes religion. But I gather that the studies showed that lots of different parts of the brain activate when people focus on their religion.

I also know from lots of experience with coding, that when it comes to computing machines, the things that cause bugs are often unexpected and often turn out to be caused by code and settings that seem to have nothing at all to do with what the software does.

But ultimately, if we did know what every part of the brain did, then PET scans would tell us which parts each person uses more, and so we'd have an objective, accurate means of determining personality, which would be far more objective and biologically accurate than any personality type theories like Big Five.

So if what you were saying was true, then no scientists would be interested in Big Five.

Rather, it's the lack of clarity that leaves room for interest in personality type theories like Big Five, HEXACO, DISC, and MBTI.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
I have heard from others, that if you can't explain something to anyone else, then there's no proof that you understand it. So in that case, there's no reason to believe you.

But most people would have a hard time understanding the complexities of modern physics. So does that mean that anyone who believes in physics is insane?
Understand and believing are very different things. I believe I understand something, but if I can't communicate it so that others can understand how will I invalidate or validate it.

The words I wrote are right there, that doesn't mean I didn't explain it well enough, if someone else were to read it they may understand what I wrote. It's not a grossly overly reaching claim, at all really. I'm not saying it's more effective I'm saying it's useful.

Ironically, having done 2 years of group therapy that specifically was devoted to emotional regulation, the amount of intelligence and skill you need to do emotional regulation, is miniscule.
Please tell us more about your easy two years of therapy specifically about something that requires miniscule merit.

If a morbidly obese person says they value their health, but not enough to do anything about it, would you say they value their health or not?
Does anyone not value their health? To some functional end? That's just a bad question. If I want to criticize them for the semantics they use not matching up with my idealized rendering of them, I'd do it on social media right then and there in front of him.

At one time, a diagnosis of ADHD was like an educational death sentence. People would assume that those with ADHD had no capacity to learn anything.

So whether ADHD typing is useful or not, all depends on how the diagnosis is treated, what help, support, training & encouragement is provided, and how society has been encouraged to view those with ADHD.
Application. Who applys it and how. Most important part.

They'd be more likely to say the person has extremely high openness, extremely low consciensciousness, and extremely low agreeableness (because they refuse to pay attention to others for long, even if that makes things difficult for everyone else).
You don't say. That doesn't disagree with anything I wrote except add on to it. Soo. Okay I guess?


I don't quite know what you're saying, if you're talking about MBTI, Big Five, HEXACO, or something else, and if you're saying that that thing is good or bad.
I'm comparing these personality schemas with each other and more specifically pointing out that Jungs models of the psyche are comparable to high level code.

I also got dragged into noting distaste with conventional psychiatric INTERVIEW -> PRESCRIBE methodology.

It could, though. We have a LOT of data about different clinical therapies, and their results in different subjects. We even know which therapies work well on which subjects. E.G. CBT is great for depression and anxiety, and DBT is great for emotional dysregulation, and BPD.

However, 10% of the country has a mental illness serious enough to prevent them from working, which is bad for a country with more jobs than people, but great for a country with more people than jobs, i.e. countries with a positive unemployment rate.
Un the states the cost is through the roof. Even a visit with the psychiatrist on it's own is like 150$ on it's own. Not counting the medication

Doctors went to school for 8+ years, it's a high skill low supply job. I'm not trying to give an unbiased opinion I'm stating my experience. Knowing about these cognitive models, including cognitive functions has done well over 70% of my recovery compared to drugs that slightly change my mood.

don't recall anyone saying they've figured out the part of the brain that causes ADHD, or kleptomania, or paedophilia, so that they can have those parts of the brain removed, and no longer have a problem.

I recall scientists did studies to find the part of the brain the causes religion. But I gather that the studies showed that lots of different parts of the brain activate when people focus on their religion.

I also know from lots of experience with coding, that when it comes to computing machines, the things that cause bugs are often unexpected and often turn out to be caused by code and settings that seem to have nothing at all to do with what the software does.

But ultimately, if we did know what every part of the brain did, then PET scans would tell us which parts each person uses more, and so we'd have an objective, accurate means of determining personality, which would be far more objective and biologically accurate than any personality type theories like Big Five.

So if what you were saying was true, then no scientists would be interested in Big Five.

Rather, it's the lack of clarity that leaves room for interest in personality type theories like Big Five, HEXACO, DISC, and MBTI
No one said anything about Neuroimaging. Neurology was brought up but I was more or less justifying looking at cognitive functions as a a marker of the brain. Something that clinicians do with interviews.

Ideally we use all these methods at once. But this isn't happening is it. Cognitive functions get too deep into the weeds of consciousness and unverifiable, Neuroimaging gives us a picture and we are guessing solutions based off past mistakes regardless if it would actually work or not due to reasons you wrote.

Not sure what you think I was writing this for. It's pretty clear what I'm am defending and denouncing, my reasoning for defending, sensing, thinking, intuition, and feelings as a a stand alone model the way jung applied them is good. If MBTI was built around that I would happily defend it..but it's not, it just shows someone their preferred actualization if you ask me.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
If MBTI was built around that I would happily defend it..but it's not, it just shows someone their preferred actualization if you ask me.
So why do people prefer one over the other.
Why not just use all cog functions.
Or if you prefer one over the other is it something that just happens or someone tells you to use?
Is it the school system?
For example schools tend to favor ESTJs.
But higher in education you go the more introverted and more intuitive it gets.
Up to a point where INTP and academic achievement are conflated for better or worse.
We know INTJs are also represented in academia.
We know NTs and NFs tend to favor knowledge, but in different directions.

This idea also might be wrong, a chicken and egg thing.
Maybe if you prefer the activity you prefer the function over others so you end up being the type, because of what you do.....

But we also have conscious and unconscious functions.

So when we are typing ourselves we tend to maybe answer according to what we know as conscious and have bias towards what is unconscious.

So the typing being in accurate might be result of not being conscious of functions.

So if I am Ti type I might use Ti all the time and never be able to turn it off cognitively, but I might not be aware that what is happening in my head is introvert thinking.
I might be aware of Ne or Fe and unaware of Si.
Because these function are introverted they are more active when people are not around and closer to conscious, while when I am around people my conscious functions kick in and are more visible.

So if someone gets typed in front of people you might type them as ENTP.
Because Ne is visible and Fe is visible.
Then you get people who are ENTP, but Ne is visible and Fe is visible only so much stronger.
But when you get to being alone the introvert functions kick in more and become more conscious.
SO you get more intense Ti and Si in INTP.
Weaker version of Ti and Si in ENTP.

So if you guys are subscribing to functions it should be common to mistype a person depending on what type is common.

We also have to account for the fact that we develop inside the school system.
That is all people roughly go through the same prison cell system.
Where you get 20 kids inside the room and one teacher and make them sit there for hours and hours making them learn tedious texts over and over again, and testing them and bench marking them.
So essentially you are deforming the thinking of people and how they perceive the world from earliest age.

In a tribe in the jungle kids might be learning to run and hunt game at this age.
But modern kids spend their most critical development sitting in schools and thinking and reading and memorizing things.

Then when they grow up your job market will be full of people who think and sit and memorize.
Because at their earliest stages of development this is what they did, so eventually you get that in adults too.

But we know the MBTI on job market is dealing with adults.
But we know development of kids has changed.
So we know lots of kids today sit in front of TV and game consoles, as that is primary what they learn to do in schools and that translates to home.

Then you have adults, but they need more than these skills.
Sitting and reading and memorizing is not a skill set that will make you valuable on job market if all people can do it. Unless you do something differently.

But to get back to chicken and egg thing, we are typing things according to as they seem to be, or at least as the way we tend to see them and think about them.

So thinking types will think of being T more or less because most of what they do is thinking whereas feeling types will fall on emotions to make decisions.

But we know many decisions are emotional regardless, but even the decision is emotional some of your decisions or most will be thought out rather than felt out.

So if someone says they are feeler, you are likely to put them in decisions where taking in feelings of others is their priority.

On other hand what you will see if T types have to make decisions on feelings they will make mistakes or misjudge things.
So they may come as excessively naive or too harsh in these decisions.
When it comes to feelers making rational decisions they will become excessively naive and or ignorant.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
So why do people prefer one over the other.
The reasons could be infinite. Some impressionable experience when they were young. Something their parents said. Genetics I think do play into it. Intelligence and self-awareness in fact, would make someone more likely to follow a certain route I think.

It's like asking what self-awareness changes about personality. Does it make you want to be a stoic hippy? or does it make you resentful bastard? How much does the most idiosynchratic qualities of personality actually affect, does it really change most outcomes if I am a hippy or resentful if the outcome of that is that I want the world to be different in someway.

I would think it only makes a difference when we are most vulnerable. We will also want to please our ego in some way, and when our sensibilities are dulled, it is more likely that we let the fantasy of personal narrative effect our rational decisions.

But higher in education you go the more introverted and more intuitive it gets.
Up to a point where INTP and academic achievement are conflated for better or worse.
It's the ultimate logical move when a college degree is your biggest meal ticket. It just makes sense to do that and expand your awareness in a playground of other people your age. Would other types actually do bad in that in that environment or have they simply decided that they don't want that for their lives.


We also have to account for the fact that we develop inside the school system.
That is all people roughly go through the same prison cell system.
Where you get 20 kids inside the room and one teacher and make them sit there for hours and hours making them learn tedious texts over and over again, and testing them and bench marking them.
So essentially you are deforming the thinking of people and how they perceive the world from earliest age.
Well, assuming that the previous generation were equipped for the constant changing environment, this position would vibe more with me.

Information processing and information application is the drone workforce of the future. Fast as possible. If the goal of schools is to prepare the students to work for someone else, schools aren't doing that well.

Then when they grow up your job market will be full of people who think and sit and memorize.
Because at their earliest stages of development this is what they did, so eventually you get that in adults too.
It's also a control variable if you think about it. You'd think that with this whole system setup you'd have more students with narrow personalities. Though maybe the fact that most people are Extroverted, something that is inappropriate in school is an indication of that people become....? It could mean anything.


So thinking types will think of being T more or less because most of what they do is thinking whereas feeling types will fall on emotions to make decisions.

But we know many decisions are emotional regardless, but even the decision is emotional some of your decisions or most will be thought out rather than felt out.

So if someone says they are feeler, you are likely to put them in decisions where taking in feelings of others is their priority.

On other hand what you will see if T types have to make decisions on feelings they will make mistakes or misjudge things.
So they may come as excessively naive or too harsh in these decisions.
When it comes to feelers making rational decisions they will become excessively naive and or ignorant.
That is the theory. Being forced to make a decision you don't want to is likely also a good litmus test. Every trolley problem should come with a mandatory MBTI test.

I's would probably have the most trouble because it's such a bizarre situation

T's would want the least harm done and thus whatever calculation they come to will be the answer.

F's will do the affective thing, so if there is one pregnant woman vs 3 grown men, good night grown men. (though still similar to T's calculation)

S' .......I have no idea. how they come to any conclusions. Stupider than Fs? Less confused then I..... Probably most related to their experience. Least informed?
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
2,043
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
It's also a control variable if you think about it. You'd think that with this whole system setup you'd have more students with narrow personalities. Though maybe the fact that most people are Extroverted, something that is inappropriate in school is an indication of that people become....? It could mean anything.
How is so many people in one room not extrovert?
Or talking in front of class, or doing group project etc.
I get that you might say, but people sit and do their own work, but essentially the amount of interactions in class super intense.
Out side of class even more.
So schools are all about extroversion.

Even libraries are super extroverted.
I mean I once sat in a library and there were four people constantly reading next to me.
2 in front and one in the back and a clerk women.
Even in the other library I used to visit there was always someone doing something.

I mean I get it, but extroversion is being around people.
Noisy environments.

That is the theory. Being forced to make a decision you don't want to is likely also a good litmus test. Every trolley problem should come with a mandatory MBTI test.
I guess being born is the ultimate personality test then lol.

It's the ultimate logical move when a college degree is your biggest meal ticket. It just makes sense to do that and expand your awareness in a playground of other people your age. Would other types actually do bad in that in that environment or have they simply decided that they don't want that for their lives.
College is a trade off, like many things.
Fact is, its a pretty lousy trade of now days for most people.
I also feel like college is still pretty much just a bigger high school.
I am not saying its bad for all, but I think, the trade off is pretty big all in all when it comes to things.
Definitely more of a social club in my experience, less stressful when it comes to people compared to high school, but more of a cramming experience.

But whatever I gave it a shot, just did not feel the vibe back then and don't really like the whole thing.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
How is so many people in one room not extrovert?
Or talking in front of class, or doing group project etc.
I get that you might say, but people sit and do their own work, but essentially the amount of interactions in class super intense.
Out side of class even more.
So schools are all about extroversion.

Even libraries are super extroverted.
I mean I once sat in a library and there were four people constantly reading next to me.
2 in front and one in the back and a clerk women.
Even in the other library I used to visit there was always someone doing something.

I mean I get it, but extroversion is being around people.
Noisy environments.
Oh that makes way more sense. I was thinking in ideal terms. I guess what I was getting at is more representative of how poorly our societal institutions function.

Or rather: if they didn't function poorly, and schooling did exactly what it was supposed to do, would there be more introverts? No way to tell without looking at personality tests before schools, but it's fun to speculate.

College is a trade off, like many things.
Fact is, its a pretty lousy trade of now days for most people.
I also feel like college is still pretty much just a bigger high school.
I am not saying its bad for all, but I think, the trade off is pretty big all in all when it comes to things.
Definitely more of a social club in my experience, less stressful when it comes to people compared to high school, but more of a cramming experience.

But whatever I gave it a shot, just did not feel the vibe back then and don't really like the whole thing.
It's a highschool with smarter people, making the amount of very stupid people still there surprising.

I agree. It's funny seeing all these mega corporations start offering courses of study to get certificates for highly technical skills. It just shows how little college actually does if the top corporations are willing to hire anyone with a 20-60 hour course. College is literally pay to win more money indefinitely at this point and no one is talking about it.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
I don't quite know what you're saying, if you're talking about MBTI, Big Five, HEXACO, or something else, and if you're saying that that thing is good or bad.
I'm comparing these personality schemas with each other and more specifically pointing out that Jungs models of the psyche are comparable to high level code.
Have you written high-level code?
Have you written low-level code?
What is the difference between high-level code and low-level code?

I also got dragged into noting distaste with conventional psychiatric INTERVIEW -> PRESCRIBE methodology.
Who found psychiatric methodology distasteful?

Knowing about these cognitive models, including cognitive functions has done well over 70% of my recovery compared to drugs that slightly change my mood.
Good for you.

Shame that most fans of Big Five and most fans of MBTI dichotomies seem to lack your share of appreciation for how Jung's descriptions of cognitive functions helps to explain and indicate treatments for mental illness.

It's pretty clear what I'm am defending and denouncing,
Science says we examine the evidence.

If we have to examine something using evidence, we don't want someone inventing arguments to try to inflate the evidence for a particular theory, and then try to inflate the evidence against a competing theory, as that corrupts the evidence, AND shows bias, when listening to the evidence requires impartiality.

So why are you defending and denouncing, when that makes the evidence worthless and any science on this topic worthless?

my reasoning for defending, sensing, thinking, intuition, and feelings as a a stand alone model the way jung applied them is good.
How can I know if your claim is true, unless I know your reasoning to know if it's good and thus if you're being honest and objective here?

If MBTI was built around that I would happily defend it..but it's not, it just shows someone their preferred actualization if you ask me.
Well, MBTI could have been done like HEXACO.

Katherine Briggs already had developed a personality typology (Meditative types, Exexcutive types, Spontaneous types, and Social types), before she and her daughter read Jung's book. But having read Jung's book, they ripped up their personality theory, and rewrote it in a way that has a 1-2-1 correlation with Jung's 16 cognitive function stacks.

Why did you think it wasn't based on Jung's work again?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
Have you written high-level code?
Have you written low-level code?
What is the difference between high-level code and low-level code?
Familiar with Java, Python, learning Go. I've also learn a more abstract versions of Java and... C#?, but we don't talk about that since yeah.

I don't know why this is relevant. You can google this right? Like it's arbitrary.

The lowest level language is machine code, like binary. 1s and 0s. This is how the computer communicates with itself. People have been smart enough to build a layer of operation above binary, which saves time when coding. There is a trade off however, in that at some point of abstraction, you start losing control of via that programming language via the libraries and stuff..
I also got dragged into noting distaste with conventional psychiatric INTERVIEW -> PRESCRIBE methodology.
Who found psychiatric methodology distasteful?
You're actually reading what you want to and there is little point in continuing this conversation if you're having trouble reading English and decipher the intent of the author.

I was the one that noted distaste with psychiatric methodology. I wrote about it. In the thread I wrote about distaste with, specifically pertaining to what I've experienced.

It's pretty clear what I'm am defending and denouncing,
Science says we examine the evidence.

If we have to examine something using evidence, we don't want someone inventing arguments to try to inflate the evidence for a particular theory, and then try to inflate the evidence against a competing theory, as that corrupts the evidence, AND shows bias, when listening to the evidence requires impartiality.

So why are you defending and denouncing, when that makes the evidence worthless and any science on this topic worthless?
Science is data in a specific context. Interpretation of that evidence can lead down many ways. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it sound. Science is complicated.

Where do I say the word worthless or devalue anything without the pretense that I know it's efficacious comparatively? My stated issues with psychiatric treatment, to re-contextualize: lack of psychotherapeutic application, submerging and achieving diagnoses via interview, over dependence on controlled substance treatment.


my reasoning for defending, sensing, thinking, intuition, and feelings as a a stand alone model the way jung applied them is good.
How can I know if your claim is true, unless I know your reasoning to know if it's good and thus if you're being honest and objective here?
Evidence for why it's good is that affect and thinking processes are still appraised by physicians and psychologists. Hence thinking and feeling are being used in psychiatry technically.

my reasoning for defending, sensing, thinking, intuition, and feelings as a a stand alone model the way jung applied them is good.
How can I know if your claim is true, unless I know your reasoning to know if it's good and thus if you're being honest and objective here?
I'm having a discussion here. I'm not writing a manuscript. If you want me to write a conclusive extrapolation then I've been doing my best answering your questions. You aren't even asking questions based on what I said anymore, you're just asking offhand questions like this.

If MBTI was built around that I would happily defend it..but it's not, it just shows someone their preferred actualization if you ask me.
Well, MBTI could have been done like HEXACO.

Katherine Briggs already had developed a personality typology (Meditative types, Exexcutive types, Spontaneous types, and Social types), before she and her daughter read Jung's book. But having read Jung's book, they ripped up their personality theory, and rewrote it in a way that has a 1-2-1 correlation with Jung's 16 cognitive function stacks.

Why did you think it wasn't based on Jung's work again?
Are you trolling? You actually aren't reading what I'm saying.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
Familiar with Java, Python, learning Go. I've also learn a more abstract versions of Java and... C#?, but we don't talk about that since yeah.

I don't know why this is relevant. You can google this right? Like it's arbitrary.
I've written in Java, C#, Assembler and Machine code, and saw where it actually made a big difference. In addition, code written in machine code runs about 10 times as fast as that written in C++, which is several times faster again than that written in Java and Python.

I would say that the difference is definitely NOT arbitrary.

Now, if you can find it on Google, that may be nice. But usually, most people who haven't coded in assembler, don't understand the differences.

The lowest level language is machine code, like binary. 1s and 0s. This is how the computer communicates with itself. People have been smart enough to build a layer of operation above binary, which saves time when coding. There is a trade off however, in that at some point of abstraction, you start losing control of via that programming language via the libraries and stuff..
Then I suggest you read Jung's descriptions of the types again, because his descriptions are very difficult to understand, which means you have to read his code many times to understand it.

However, his descriptions are precise enough that you can use them to actually feed other people's brains with the type of data that their brains respond to.

You can read it here:

Psychological Types by C. G. Jung (1921). Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923).

You're actually reading what you want to and there is little point in continuing this conversation if you're having trouble reading English and decipher the intent of the author.
I often see multiple ways of interpreting the same sentence. I was not sure if you meant that you thought that of me, or yourself.

I was the one that noted distaste with psychiatric methodology. I wrote about it. In the thread I wrote about distaste with, specifically pertaining to what I've experienced.
I read new threads every day. Have been doing so for 20 years. You think I always remember them all?

Science is data in a specific context. Interpretation of that evidence can lead down many ways. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it sound. Science is complicated.
If every piece of evidence has many interpretations, when only one would be correct, then the odds are that scientific interpretations of evidence is probably wrong, which would make science worthless.

Where do I say the word worthless or devalue anything without the pretense that I know it's efficacious comparatively?
You stated that you're defending ideas and denouncing ideas. I pointed out that such an attitude makes any evidence regarding them worthless.

You may not have realised that such an attitude makes any evidence regarding them worthless, as many people on the internet seem to think that informal debate is a valid way of establishing truth, particularly Americans.

My stated issues with psychiatric treatment, to re-contextualize: lack of psychotherapeutic application,
Most people's attitudes to the mentally ill, have been to be confused by their behavior, as the whole point of diagnosing mental illness, is that their behaviour doesn't conform to any sane form of behaviour, and not even criminal behaviour.

So until recently, there's been a general perspective that the mentally ill mind is more like a black box that defies explanation. As a result, the general expectation was that if the mind was to ever recover, it would have to do it itself.

So until recently, therapies could only hope to uncover something to the patient that made their minds click back into place, and there was no scientifically-known way to understand what cured someone's mental illness, and thus there was no scientifically-known way to understand what caused someone's mental illness either.

This will help to understand your next issue:

submerging and achieving diagnoses via interview,
Diagnosis via interview is necessary, because the whole point of mental illness, is that the mind isn't working properly. It's like a computer that isn't working correctly. When people say that a computer did something wrong, about 90% of the time, they were simply operating it incorrectly. You can't be sure that the computer is really behaving oddly, until you press the buttons that are supposed to do something, and then it does something that it should not be able to do, or doesn't do what it should definitely do.

However, because mental health professionals thought that they didn't understand when or how therapy would result in a cure, doctors worked with the presumption that they didn't know the causes of mental illness. So mental illnesses were categorised by their symptoms, not their causes. Depression that is caused by over-thinking and depression that is caused by over-feeling, are both categorised as depression. Anxiety and depression are very frequently caused by the same issue, but are diagnosed as separate illnesses.

As a result, multiple patients can be diagnosed with the same psychiatric disorders, and go through identical treatments, but have entirely different outcomes. So there's no clear correlation between diagnosis and therapy, which means there's no realistic way to determine which therapy would be useful and/or successful based on the diagnosis.

This will help to understand your next problem:

over dependence on controlled substance treatment.
Controlled substance treatment is mainly used as a means of stabilising the patient's condition, prior to treatment via therapy, the same way that doctors in an ER will try to stabilise a patient with a gunshot wound, before treating the wound, in order to ensure that the patient doesn't die or suffer irreparable harm before the treatment is completed.

Controlled substances have been very effective at sedating the patient, so he is unlikely to act out in any ways that might cause him to cause severe physical harm to himself or others, which stabilises the condition.

However, because psychotherapists thought they had no clue what caused mental illness, and thus also what might cure mental illness, therapists didn't really expect therapy to cure mental illnesses or even have a clue how long it would take.

So therapies have been taking a lot longer to cure the majority of patients than treatments to most gunshot wounds, broken legs and diseases, because the chances of a patient's therapy being a treatment that cured the cause of their mental illness was mostly pot luck, based on which therapy was favoured by the next therapist the patient happened to come across next and start seeing in therapy.

Psychiatrists and psychologists were so pessmistic about the success of their therapies, that until the last 10 years, they were routinely instructed that they should never give the patient false hope by giving them the impression that he would be "cured". I'd actually asked some of them about this in the past. It was a fundamental part of their training, and was considered necessary for therapy to work.

So it was more a case that the drugs usually sedated the patient, while therapy was not expected to work at all.

====================================

It has taken some time for R. D. Laing's famous claim that many of the insane are actually those who having a sane reaction to an insane world, to sink in and start to change psychotherapy accordingly.

However, these days, there's been empirical evidence that now suggests to some psychotherapists, that those who suffer from mental illness, simply don't do certain things that most sane people do often, or do certain things often, that most sane people hardly ever do.

Psychotherapists are starting to talk about a "trauma-informed approach". This is when you view mental illness as thoughts, feelings and behaviours that worked successfully for a particular situation, such as a very difficult and traumatic childhood. If the person continues those thoughts, feelings and behaviours into adult normal life which is very different, they start to cause unnecessary problems.

As a result, psychotherapists are starting to talk about teaching patients more what types of techniques they can use often in their daily life, that will improve some situations a little bit, but over many situations in a year, would improve their overall experience a lot, such as those found in CBT and DBT.

However, the kicker, is that most people go to the doctor to cure a mental illness, expecting something like the way a doctor cures an illness or a broken leg.

What they're getting from CBT and DBT, are simple tips that they could have thought of, and likely heard from their grandmother, which aren't that useful in knowing, but in applying.

However, this is a new approach, and psychotherapists are still learning the kinks. They don't tend to follow patients through their lives. So they don't really get much feedback about the precise details of the way each therapy worked long-term, to properly understand what therapeutic techniques increase the level of application in their patients.

However, this approach effectively makes the patient the therapist. Psychotherapists are simply stores of useful information that you seek out to learn new methods to improve your own mental health.

If you take control of the therapeutic process, and your own therapies that improves your real life, then you can direct therapy to the result you want.

Evidence for why it's good is that affect and thinking processes are still appraised by physicians and psychologists. Hence thinking and feeling are being used in psychiatry technically.
1) Psychology & psychiatry deal with the mind, not the body. Thus they only have emotions (affect) and thinking to diagnose and treat.

So yes, thinking and feeling are being used in psychiatry, because that's all they have to work with.

2) They don't mention Sensation or Intuition.

3) Psychologists and psychiatrists rejected Jung's work as a professional treatise, a long time ago. Their descriptions of emotions and feeling are clearly unrelated to Jung's, which you'd know if you had had therapy.

3) Psychiatric evaluations don't test if you rely on irrational emotions or irrational reasoning to make irrational decisions and do things that don't make any sense.

Psychiatrists and psychologists don't even mention any sort of difference, not even in people that clearly rely almost exclusively on one and not the other.

They don't talk about emotions and thinking in terms of functions at all.

4) They certainly don't talk about introverted thinking and extroverted thinking, introverted feeling and extroverted feeling, or suppose that introverts and extroverts make decisions in different ways.

5) They certainly don't talk about introverted sensation, extroverted sensation, introverted intuition, or extroverted intuition.

I'm having a discussion here.
If you want a discussion, then I suggest that you start discussing.

A discussion is a type of conversation. Not all conversations are discussions. In discussions, we SHARE ideas. Everyone's ideas are valid, and so we try to avoid objective judgements that might cause someone else's view to be made invalid, or people will stop sharing.

When you try to prove that your idea is brilliant and another person's idea is rubbish, we call that an ARGUMENT.

I'm not writing a manuscript. If you want me to write a conclusive extrapolation then I've been doing my best answering your questions. You aren't even asking questions based on what I said anymore, you're just asking offhand questions like this.
You just keep replying that you already did your best at answering my questions. I've read tens of thousands of threads, and lots more posts. So expecting me to remember every post I've ever read, is rather unrealistic.

So those responses only benefit me or you, when you add a link to the post where you answered it, so I can re-read the post, and see if you did answer the question or not, and if so, what your answer was, as only then can I possibly know what you're talking about, and only then can I possibly know if what you are saying makes any sense at all.

If MBTI was built around that I would happily defend it..but it's not, it just shows someone their preferred actualization if you ask me.
Well, MBTI could have been done like HEXACO.

Katherine Briggs already had developed a personality typology (Meditative types, Exexcutive types, Spontaneous types, and Social types), before she and her daughter read Jung's book. But having read Jung's book, they ripped up their personality theory, and rewrote it in a way that has a 1-2-1 correlation with Jung's 16 cognitive function stacks.

Why did you think it wasn't based on Jung's work again?
Are you trolling? You actually aren't reading what I'm saying.
You did realise that I was actually citing your own statement, right?

I was being facetious and subtle. I was implying the following: "I could say that MBTI was very clearly based on Jung's psychological types, and that you're talking rubbish. But I'll be open-minded and considerate, and give you a chance to give a reason why you think that MBTI was not based on Jung, given what I wrote about the history of MBTI."

You can respond, or not. But no response implies that you simply didn't read up on the history of MBTI, or consider that MBTI has a 1-2-1 correlation to the 16 dom & aux Jungian cognitive function pairs that occur in most people, and didn't realise this, and have changed your view.

So you have a chance here, to defend your views.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
Like points I'm bringing up and have had to elaborate because you say you don't understand, ultimately you're adding to them now. Still seem to be reading things I did not intend.

Just to reiterate, the claims I made imply a connection between roots of biology, towards conscious psychology, modulated by functions, which are typed by Jung. Meaning, although types, they are referring to real phenomena that can be altered via what we call psychotherapy.

I've written in Java, C#, Assembler and Machine code, and saw where it actually made a big difference. In addition, code written in machine code runs about 10 times as fast as that written in C++, which is several times faster again than that written in Java and Python.

I would say that the difference is definitely NOT arbitrary.

Now, if you can find it on Google, that may be nice. But usually, most people who haven't coded in assembler, don't understand the differences.

It's arbitrary to ask for definitions on terms on the internet exactly because Google exists. I already used the word, in my eyes, several times in context that reveals what it means. Your question exists for a reason that is redundant. A common thread for your questions.

The lowest level language is machine code, like binary. 1s and 0s. This is how the computer communicates with itself. People have been smart enough to build a layer of operation above binary, which saves time when coding. There is a trade off however, in that at some point of abstraction, you start losing control of via that programming language via the libraries and stuff..
Then I suggest you read Jung's descriptions of the types again, because his descriptions are very difficult to understand, which means you have to read his code many times to understand it.

However, his descriptions are precise enough that you can use them to actually feed other people's brains with the type of data that their brains respond to.

You can read it here:

Psychological Types by C. G. Jung (1921). Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923).

I have a feeling that even if I were to analyze in depth the 6 hour read that is Jung's Psychological functions (a good project actually) it wouldn't really make the conversation with you that productive.

How about instead of recommending I read that, you just tell me what part of that source says I'm incorrect. That is if you are saying I am incorrect. I can't really tell anymore because again, you've seemed to be adamantly skeptical about it, and now are now proposing similar claims.

I will chipping away at that book though, so maybe it will come into play.


I was the one that noted distaste with psychiatric methodology. I wrote about it. In the thread I wrote about distaste with, specifically pertaining to what I've experienced.
I read new threads every day. Have been doing so for 20 years. You think I always remember them all?

It's quite rude to talk to someone and then misread the essence of what they were saying, and then somehow try to pin the blame on the person that was misunderstood.

Science is data in a specific context. Interpretation of that evidence can lead down many ways. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it sound. Science is complicated.
If every piece of evidence has many interpretations, when only one would be correct, then the odds are that scientific interpretations of evidence is probably wrong, which would make science worthless.

Where do I say the word worthless or devalue anything without the pretense that I know it's efficacious comparatively?
You stated that you're defending ideas and denouncing ideas. I pointed out that such an attitude makes any evidence regarding them worthless.

You may not have realised that such an attitude makes any evidence regarding them worthless, as many people on the internet seem to think that informal debate is a valid way of establishing truth, particularly Americans.
Much like the medium is the message in communication, Science IS the evidence. There is no "scientific interpretation of data".

If [attitude] then [science worthless] is what I have to disprove? This is redundant.

The question is not whether there is some actions taking place here that determine truth. It's how much truth does the content of words contain.

You seem to be the one that thinks attitudes affects how much value is in evidence. A silly juxtaposition. Not sure what nationality has to do with this.


My stated issues with psychiatric treatment, to re-contextualize: lack of psychotherapeutic application,
Most people's attitudes to the mentally ill, have been to be confused by their behavior, as the whole point of diagnosing mental illness, is that their behaviour doesn't conform to any sane form of behaviour, and not even criminal behaviour.

So until recently, there's been a general perspective that the mentally ill mind is more like a black box that defies explanation. As a result, the general expectation was that if the mind was to ever recover, it would have to do it itself.

So until recently, therapies could only hope to uncover something to the patient that made their minds click back into place, and there was no scientifically-known way to understand what cured someone's mental illness, and thus there was no scientifically-known way to understand what caused someone's mental illness either.

This will help to understand your next issue:
Don't disagree. Though you make divisions that align with attitudes, invoking criminology so you must be wrong in a very big way.


submerging and achieving diagnoses via interview,
Diagnosis via interview is necessary, because the whole point of mental illness, is that the mind isn't working properly. It's like a computer that isn't working correctly. When people say that a computer did something wrong, about 90% of the time, they were simply operating it incorrectly. You can't be sure that the computer is really behaving oddly, until you press the buttons that are supposed to do something, and then it does something that it should not be able to do, or doesn't do what it should definitely do.

However, because mental health professionals thought that they didn't understand when or how therapy would result in a cure, doctors worked with the presumption that they didn't know the causes of mental illness. So mental illnesses were categorised by their symptoms, not their causes. Depression that is caused by over-thinking and depression that is caused by over-feeling, are both categorised as depression. Anxiety and depression are very frequently caused by the same issue, but are diagnosed as separate illnesses.

As a result, multiple patients can be diagnosed with the same psychiatric disorders, and go through identical treatments, but have entirely different outcomes. So there's no clear correlation between diagnosis and therapy, which means there's no realistic way to determine which therapy would be useful and/or successful based on the diagnosis.

This will help to understand your next problem:
Yes yes, this justifies the same 5 questions. Are your symptoms getting worse or better? There is no other way to get a clearer image of what is happening in someone's life.

Psychiatry is mostly for people that don't want to engage in people's lives but still want to influence them greatly. I see that niche now. Most human beings are like this by the way. Keep people at arms length if they have issues.

over dependence on controlled substance treatment.
Controlled substance treatment is mainly used as a means of stabilising the patient's condition, prior to treatment via therapy, the same way that doctors in an ER will try to stabilise a patient with a gunshot wound, before treating the wound, in order to ensure that the patient doesn't die or suffer irreparable harm before the treatment is completed.

Controlled substances have been very effective at sedating the patient, so he is unlikely to act out in any ways that might cause him to cause severe physical harm to himself or others, which stabilises the condition.

However, because psychotherapists thought they had no clue what caused mental illness, and thus also what might cure mental illness, therapists didn't really expect therapy to cure mental illnesses or even have a clue how long it would take.

So therapies have been taking a lot longer to cure the majority of patients than treatments to most gunshot wounds, broken legs and diseases, because the chances of a patient's therapy being a treatment that cured the cause of their mental illness was mostly pot luck, based on which therapy was favoured by the next therapist the patient happened to come across next and start seeing in therapy.

Psychiatrists and psychologists were so pessmistic about the success of their therapies, that until the last 10 years, they were routinely instructed that they should never give the patient false hope by giving them the impression that he would be "cured". I'd actually asked some of them about this in the past. It was a fundamental part of their training, and was considered necessary for therapy to work.

So it was more a case that the drugs usually sedated the patient, while therapy was not expected to work at all.
You're very much illustrating mental health professionals as a monolith. You might say that in practice this is the way to go, but not everyone is thought the same or does the same approach.

Personally I've been told that even at the same practice philosophies can differ. Someone might say that recovery is 70% medication and 30% counseling, others might say 50/50. It's not like people are thinking critically about every patient as they should be. Which is the problem.

It's like a doctor telling you to lose weight to feel better, and when you do it turns out you had a completely unrelated problem to weight. If the Dr had just done their job, something as simple as a deeper blood work check, it could mean the difference of a lot of suffering.

Evidence for why it's good is that affect and thinking processes are still appraised by physicians and psychologists. Hence thinking and feeling are being used in psychiatry technically.
1) Psychology & psychiatry deal with the mind, not the body. Thus they only have emotions (affect) and thinking to diagnose and treat.

So yes, thinking and feeling are being used in psychiatry, because that's all they have to work with.

2) They don't mention Sensation or Intuition.

3) Psychologists and psychiatrists rejected Jung's work as a professional treatise, a long time ago. Their descriptions of emotions and feeling are clearly unrelated to Jung's, which you'd know if you had had therapy.

3) Psychiatric evaluations don't test if you rely on irrational emotions or irrational reasoning to make irrational decisions and do things that don't make any sense.
The only difference is that Jung tried to catalogue sub/unconscious phenomenology.

By the way sensation is also used. Psychological well being can be linked to blood pressure and muscle relaxation also improves mood.

Psychiatrists and psychologists don't even mention any sort of difference, not even in people that clearly rely almost exclusively on one and not the other.

They don't talk about emotions and thinking in terms of functions at all.

4) They certainly don't talk about introverted thinking and extroverted thinking, introverted feeling and extroverted feeling, or suppose that introverts and extroverts make decisions in different ways.

5) They certainly don't talk about introverted sensation, extroverted sensation, introverted intuition, or extroverted intuition.

I'm having a discussion here.
If you want a discussion, then I suggest that you start discussing.

A discussion is a type of conversation. Not all conversations are discussions. In discussions, we SHARE ideas. Everyone's ideas are valid, and so we try to avoid objective judgements that might cause someone else's view to be made invalid, or people will stop sharing.

When you try to prove that your idea is brilliant and another person's idea is rubbish, we call that an ARGUMENT.

I'm not writing a manuscript. If you want me to write a conclusive extrapolation then I've been doing my best answering your questions. You aren't even asking questions based on what I said anymore, you're just asking offhand questions like this.
You just keep replying that you already did your best at answering my questions. I've read tens of thousands of threads, and lots more posts. So expecting me to remember every post I've ever read, is rather unrealistic.

So those responses only benefit me or you, when you add a link to the post where you answered it, so I can re-read the post, and see if you did answer the question or not, and if so, what your answer was, as only then can I possibly know what you're talking about, and only then can I possibly know if what you are saying makes any sense at all.
How does this relate to Jung being top-level code? This discussion is pretty limiting when I'm being put into a corner to talk about something I had no intention of talking about.

scorpiomover said: If MBTI was built around that I would happily defend it..but it's not, it just shows someone their preferred actualization if you ask me. Click to expand... Well, MBTI could have been done like HEXACO.

Katherine Briggs already had developed a personality typology (Meditative types, Exexcutive types, Spontaneous types, and Social types), before she and her daughter read Jung's book. But having read Jung's book, they ripped up their personality theory, and rewrote it in a way that has a 1-2-1 correlation with Jung's 16 cognitive function stacks.

Why did you think it wasn't based on Jung's work again? Click to expand... Are you trolling? You actually aren't reading what I'm saying.
You did realise that I was actually citing your own statement, right?

I was being facetious and subtle. I was implying the following: "I could say that MBTI was very clearly based on Jung's psychological types, and that you're talking rubbish. But I'll be open-minded and considerate, and give you a chance to give a reason why you think that MBTI was not based on Jung, given what I wrote about the history of MBTI."

You can respond, or not. But no response implies that you simply didn't read up on the history of MBTI, or consider that MBTI has a 1-2-1 correlation to the 16 dom & aux Jungian cognitive function pairs that occur in most people, and didn't realise this, and have changed your view.

So you have a chance here, to defend your views.
It's not based on Jungs work, as much as it tried >.> Jung's work doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the direction MBTI took his work in is the reason you probably can't see what's connects the cognitive functions to general psychology and biology.. There is so much about complexes and architypes that this stuff was meant to mesh with. It is not a 1-2-1 application of Jungs work. It distinctly misses connection to individuation, which was central to all of Jungs work and works as a connecting function.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 9:54 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
8,009
-->
Location
crib
Psychotherapists are starting to talk about a "trauma-informed approach".
Psychiatric evaluations don't test if you rely on irrational emotions or irrational reasoning to make irrational decisions and do things that don't make any sense.
1) Psychology & psychiatry deal with the mind, not the body. Thus they only have emotions (affect) and thinking to diagnose and treat.

interesting
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
It's not based on Jungs work, as much as it tried >.> Jung's work doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the direction MBTI took his work in is the reason you probably can't see what's connects the cognitive functions to general psychology and biology.. There is so much about complexes and architypes that this stuff was meant to mesh with. It is not a 1-2-1 application of Jungs work. It distinctly misses connection to individuation, which was central to all of Jungs work and works as a connecting function.
I agree that whatver you know of Jung writings that relates to psychology, would probably help you more to understand Jung's work in psychology.

But if people have to do 3 years of psych before learning about their type, then everyone who isn't doing 3 years of psych won't learn about their type. The world would be the same as if Jung had not published his book at all.

Authors have an audience. You can't expect a book to be written to cater for an audience the book wasn't written for.

Jung was primarily writing from the POV of a psychoanalytic therapist. Naturally, his concerns were more towards the aberrations that affect mental illness.

Jung wrote that individuation concerns the latter half of someone's life, when he has already built a career, and had dated, got married, and had children. Now that he's accomplished his goals, and those that he has not accomplished, he thinks unlikely to happen, he starts to evaluate if his life choices have led him to where he wants to end up at the end of his life.

Briggs and Meyers were management consultuants in the 1940s, when 16 million American men went to war, and millions of young American women neded to be recruited very quickly to take their place. They had to be trained. So lack of experience was not an issue. But very quickly, many thousands of women would have been put in jobs that did clashed with their personality. In normal life, that process happens naturally over several years. But the war meant that process needed to be vastly accelerated.

So they were dealing with people who were in the first phase of life, who are still learning to deal with the world, long before they become interested in psychological individuation.

Equally, they weren't dealing with those who were so severely mentally that they could not work. Those people have to seek out treatment from psychotherapists, and so many of them become patients. So they are of interest to psychotherapists, but not much use to employers.

So MBTI was chiefly focussed on people are in their teens or 20s, have a general capability to work, but are unsure yet of their nature, and what might make them able to enjoy their work, and succeed at their work.

MBTI gave a positive description for each type, because with so many more workers required in WW2, demand for employees vastly exceeded supply. So there was always going to be a job that would not get filled, unless even the most incompetent of people applied. So everyone was valuable. It was a question of getting people into jobs that matched their abilities and their needs.

During this time, books that were promoted as helping people succeed in their career, were aimed at helping people to figure out the best careers for them, so all of their applications were more likely to be more successful, and they would want the jobs they got.

Today, we hear about 10,000 people applying for 200 jobs, because it pays well. Supply of candidates exceeds demand. So in the past 30 years, employers have been looking for any reason to reject employees, if only to whittle down the shortlist of candidates to a number that they can reasonable interview.

Until COVID & The Great Resignation, what employers were looking for, were psychometric tests that could be evaluated in terms of numbers that increase as the person would be a better fit for the job. Then they simply gave psychometric tests to all candidates, and picked the 200 with the highest scores.

When there's less jobs than people who want them, to get a job, for every job taken, someone else loses a job. So what mattered more to people, was promoting the idea that they were better at the job than those who already had the job.

So knowing your type to know what job you'd be best in, went by the wayside, in favour of claiming that your type is superior in the qualities that employers of your dream job are looking for.

If you wish to know your type or someone else's type, before you answer the question, you have to know WHY you want to know your type or someone else's type. Your reasons for wanting to know your type or someone else's type, will dictate which information you will be motivated to discover, and which information you will want to bury, even from yourself.

So WHY do you want to know your type?

What are the people whose types you want to know, and why?

Do you want to know the type of dates, so you know if they are compatible with you, or because you just want the best quality person for a relationship?

The former is a person who is perfectly suited to you. Their weaknesses are your strengths, and your weaknesses are their strengths, that you can help each other do better.

The latter is a person with all strengths, and no weaknesses.

Do you want to know the types of celebrities to understand them?

Do you want to know their types so you know what it takes to be rich & famous? Then people who wish to be celebrities will claim that celebrities are the same type as them.

Do you want to know their types for giggles? Then you devalue typology, and in the process, make it far more likely that other people will abuse & corrupt typology.

WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW YOUR TYPE?
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW YOUR TYPE?
Because listing the scenario is easier than describing:

I am INTP. INTP's suffer from correlating issues.

I have an ENFP friend. They suffer from less so correlating issues.

There are an assortment of things that the ENFP may have no trouble with that I may struggle with, and vice versa.

Not that this is varifiable- scientific, but I would look for trends, and thus be able to engage with root problems. For example this friend may make me realize that it's okay to make normative statements towards yourself for the sake of emotional stability. And I can let them know that doing such a thing has drawbacks and so on. I can get a clearer image-insight of a normative characteristic of human psychology.

If I Find an ESFP that is another degree different I can rinse and repeat.

You do raise a valid point that it would require the a vast pool of knowledge, most of which I myself would not be prepared to apply at a moments notice, but the right questions would allow someone to engage this.

Though I would acknowledge that most people that aren't INTP or adjacent types would have trouble describing things in a way that others understand because it's so ingrained in them they don't question it and thus would struggle to articulate it.

\\\
When looking at something like Big 5, it might be more illustrative of behavior, but the question that might arise is- what now? I practice being more consciousousss or more extraverted or open, but if I don't have a sense of what those things are and are not, how can I be sure I am doing such a thing.

On the other hand, knowing dominant and inferior functions will allow me to see exactly what's missing, and I would be able to apply changes immediately.

You might argue that what is the point of doing such a thing. You're right, maybe there is not much utility in it, but altering mental states is fascinating to me, and is in itself valuable if you are trying to create a mental state conducive to a behavior rather than brute force applying the behavior regardless of what your mental state is. And application of both behavioral therapy and psychotherapy I would imagine is ideal.

It's just that most practices just do one or the other. Strange since they both operate over the same biology and many of the same premises, such as the unconscious mind. Which is what I am mostly venting about in frustration here. It just seems like students are pigeonholed to a certain field with some weird intent behind institutional structures, and some vaguely political motivations.
 

Geauvoir

Member
Local time
Today 11:54 PM
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
60
-->
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.
I don't even need to read your post. I agree. MBTI is bullshit pseudoscience. My theory is that people who are really invested in their MBTI simply do not know themselves well enough. Typing is a first step for them.

As for why I'm on an MBTI forum then? Well, that's another (long) story but it actually has nothing at all to do with MBTI.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW YOUR TYPE?
Because listing the scenario is easier than describing:

I am INTP. INTP's suffer from correlating issues.
I have an ENFP friend. They suffer from less so correlating issues.

There are an assortment of things that the ENFP may have no trouble with that I may struggle with, and vice versa.

Not that this is varifiable- scientific, but I would look for trends, and thus be able to engage with root problems. For example this friend may make me realize that it's okay to make normative statements towards yourself for the sake of emotional stability. And I can let them know that doing such a thing has drawbacks and so on. I can get a clearer image-insight of a normative characteristic of human psychology.

If I Find an ESFP that is another degree different I can rinse and repeat.
You could do that, and would be more efficient and useful doing that, with anyone who doesn't suffer from a problem you suffer from, and anyone who does suffer from a problem that you don't suffer from.

You do raise a valid point that it would require the a vast pool of knowledge, most of which I myself would not be prepared to apply at a moments notice, but the right questions would allow someone to engage this.
Then in order to engage this, we need to know which questions are the right questions.

Though I would acknowledge that most people that aren't INTP or adjacent types would have trouble describing things in a way that others understand because it's so ingrained in them they don't question it and thus would struggle to articulate it.
Then we cannot expect most people to made the adjustments that make things better for everyone, until they receive some psycho-education, i.e. that everyone is taught which questions are the right questions.

When looking at something like Big 5, it might be more illustrative of behavior, but the question that might arise is- what now? I practice being more consciousousss or more extraverted or open, but if I don't have a sense of what those things are and are not, how can I be sure I am doing such a thing.

On the other hand, knowing dominant and inferior functions will allow me to see exactly what's missing, and I would be able to apply changes immediately.
Yes, but only once you know what those functions are. If you don't have a sense of what those things are and are not, how can you be sure that you are doing such a thing?

You might argue that what is the point of doing such a thing. You're right, maybe there is not much utility in it, but altering mental states is fascinating to me,
So you're looking for entertainment? Plenty of video games and other activities that are much more readily available.

You want info? Great. Go learn something. Go to a class. Learn something from the internet. Read a book.

You want to advance human knowledge by learning something that has never been discovered before? Plenty of subjects like that.

Changing people's minds, playing Frankenstein, just because it's fascinating to you? Sounds like you aren't considering the consequences, if things don't go exactly as you imagine.

and is in itself valuable if you are trying to create a mental state conducive to a behavior rather than brute force applying the behavior regardless of what your mental state is.
Sure. Phineas Gage's experiences proved you can change personality type by doing things to the brain.

But "first do no harm". So you need stringent animal testing in the development phase, before you move to human trials, and ethical human trials before you move to production among the people.

And application of both behavioral therapy and psychotherapy I would imagine is ideal.

It's just that most practices just do one or the other. Strange since they both operate over the same biology and many of the same premises, such as the unconscious mind.
Most therapists won't see you, if you're already having therapy, even if they are both using the same methods. It's like having 2 drivers, or 2 driving instructors. They're bound to conflict sometimes, and that will give mixed messaging.

However, you can find some therapists who use therapies that are a mix of behavioural therapy AND psychotherapy.

Which is what I am mostly venting about in frustration here. It just seems like students are pigeonholed to a certain field with some weird intent behind institutional structures, and some vaguely political motivations.
That's true of most academic subjects, and most workplaces.

Most university's PhD supervisors decide what PhD subjects they will teach, and advertise them at university job fairs. Students have to go round to each stall, and then pick the one they like the most.

In turn, the supervisors are limited to picking the subjects they teach, from the topics that the department head wants them to study.

In turn, the department heads are limited to picking the topics that their department studies, from the topics that the university's board wants them to study.

In turn, the board are limited to picking the topics that their university studies, from the topics that the government's Ministry of Education wants them to study.

Et cetera.

No-one has absolute freedom. Even the CEO of a corporation has shareholders and customers to appease.

You find the course you want, out of the courses that are available.

Same for people seeking therapy from public healthcare. You find the therapy you want, out of the therapies that are available on public healthcare.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
@scorpiomover

This might be the situation in Europe, where psychoanalysis and therapeutics originated, but in the US it's a much different story. There are only private practices where these fields are taken seriously. The amount of work that is applied to social workers and appointed physicians is unreasonable to expect them to give people care regardless of type of treatment.

Your point on doubting the outcomes, the dangers of using cognitive functions for therapy are warranted, but the alternative is being weak to things that tamper with them that we have no control over.

Much like CBT, psychotherapy builds skills you can employ whenever you want, not drugs that you are lost without.

If you can pick what you want that's cool. I can tell you that schools in the US are not kind to any of the psychoanalytic/depth psychology practices. Undergraduate courses at least. The classes that do go into these classes have a historic bent to them, rather than application.

I guess, yes, it can't be helped.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 4:54 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,406
-->
This might be the situation in Europe, where psychoanalysis and therapeutics originated, but in the US it's a much different story. There are only private practices where these fields are taken seriously. The amount of work that is applied to social workers and appointed physicians is unreasonable to expect them to give people care regardless of type of treatment.
Yes. But then your therapists are in the same situation as Freud and Jung were in Europe before WW2, i.e. mostly private mental health therapists.

Your point on doubting the outcomes, the dangers of using cognitive functions for therapy are warranted, but the alternative is being weak to things that tamper with them that we have no control over.
I would like to see cognitive functions used for therapy.

But if you want to use them, you need to make sure that you know what you're doing, i.e. be upfront with yourself about which type you really are, as opposed to which type you want to believe you are, and equally, be upfront and with the pros and cons of your type, and what you can do to make more use of your type's strengths and to overcome/compensate for yout type's weaknesses.

It's this element of being truthful about one's type, and the real-life pros and cons of one's type, that I see people avoiding online. It's a form of perpetuating escapism, and thus avoiding a more real life.

Much like CBT, psychotherapy builds skills you can employ whenever you want, not drugs that you are lost without.
That's the aim with behavioural therapies like CBT and DBT, teach people the thoughts, feelings and actions, that will encourage the desired behaviours.

If you can pick what you want that's cool. I can tell you that schools in the US are not kind to any of the psychoanalytic/depth psychology practices. Undergraduate courses at least. The classes that do go into these classes have a historic bent to them,
Chronological approaches are excellent for getting a timeline. Once you have a timeline, you can then examine other things that were happening at the same time or soon after, which allows you to identify what consequences followed the introduction and popularity of different therapies, and work out which therapies caused which side-effects in different demographics, which means common naturally-occurring benefits of particular therapies become clear simply by studying comparative history.

rather than application.

I guess, yes, it can't be helped.
Doctors don't look for applications of fixing a broken leg. Driving instructors don't teach you the uses of driving. That's your job.

CBT and DBT use approaches where you are taught methods that would help a little bit, if done once, but a lot if done many times, and so rely on extremely frequent application.

So CBT and DBT advocates, often tend to say their methods can be used (almost) anywhere, in order to encourage usage.

They also tend to teach several methods, so that users have several methods to choose from, to increase usage.

What you're looking for, is applications, to know WHEN to apply each one. I.E. (1) when a method will be successful (1), how successful each method would be in each situation (2), and thus which methods would work best in each situation (3).

You're most likely looking for just (3), so you know which method to use in each situation, to maximise your benefits. But someone has to work out (1) & (2), to compute (3).

To know that, you have to test each method as far as possible, so you know when you've hit the limits of each method. In other words, you have to look for failure.

This desire to find the objective limits of each method, is at odds with the desire to maximise application by increasing usage, by convincing as many as possible that any of these methods could work almost everywhere.

What you want, is a system, something systematic for mental health, someone like a life coach with some training in psychotherapy, who can advise you which mental health tools would be best for your personal needs.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 10:54 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,053
-->
Location
Narnia
Your point on doubting the outcomes, the dangers of using cognitive functions for therapy are warranted, but the alternative is being weak to things that tamper with them that we have no control over.
I would like to see cognitive functions used for therapy.

But if you want to use them, you need to make sure that you know what you're doing, i.e. be upfront with yourself about which type you really are, as opposed to which type you want to believe you are, and equally, be upfront and with the pros and cons of your type, and what you can do to make more use of your type's strengths and to overcome/compensate for yout type's weaknesses.

It's this element of being truthful about one's type, and the real-life pros and cons of one's type, that I see people avoiding online. It's a form of perpetuating escapism, and thus avoiding a more real life.
I think broadly speaking CBT, works on the thinking function. It conditions a response of neutrality to stimuli and gives you room to take steps towards alleviating stressors brought on by thoughts.

If the stressor originates from emotions, affect, it's not going to go away with thoughts, though it may be weaker.

Someone with PTSD like a soldier is more scarred by their emotions impressions in extreme stress.

I do think CBT, working on the thinking function, is a good place to start because cognition that is uninterrupted is ideal to get someone to function optimally with the rest of your life. But it will lack in comparison to something like DBT which seems to have a direct goal with emotional processing. affirms and validates the way the afflicted person will feel and work more towards dissociating from emotional impacts.

The functions are already in use. Affective therapy I think is the most underdeveloped, which is unfortunate because feeling is the primary thing that overrides thinking.

Sensing as I said before is used as a marker for ones state. But things like exercise is essential to good health in general, especially psychological.

Considering how recent a phenomena recreational exercise is (before modern times things like jogging for fun was looked at with peculiarity) is proof of that. No doctor needs to tell anyone that working your body is going to make you feel better.

If you want an example of sensing being used that we actually use, EMDR is also something that has been gaining credibility for emotional processing. There is a weird rationale to it, but I think the science is on it's side.

The only function I don't really see manifested in clinical application is intuition. It's tied to experience and wisdom so I'm just not sure how doctors can tackle it. It rings to me that patients mirroring what their clinicians tell them to do in response to something is intuition, but intuition itself being exercise is not something I really see.

Like you say the practitioner is there just to watch you, you have to do the work. I'm just noting the crime of these models not really being utilized when framing things in terms of feeling, thinking, sensing, and intuition is very useful. But not, my contemporaries so often refer to everything as a vibe. That doesn't vibe well with me.

If you can pick what you want that's cool. I can tell you that schools in the US are not kind to any of the psychoanalytic/depth psychology practices. Undergraduate courses at least. The classes that do go into these classes have a historic bent to them,
Chronological approaches are excellent for getting a timeline. Once you have a timeline, you can then examine other things that were happening at the same time or soon after, which allows you to identify what consequences followed the introduction and popularity of different therapies, and work out which therapies caused which side-effects in different demographics, which means common naturally-occurring benefits of particular therapies become clear simply by studying comparative history.
I'm too lazy to do that. I did read this Indian paper, In it's conclusion it notes how psychiatry split into biology, and that it was believed that psychotherapy would die out. What's credited with it's resurgence is that we know and can measure that these therapies are doing something with more advance technologies and methods. We stopped working in the dark essentially.

Overall it's a decent paper that connects biology to these therapies, it's one of the few research papers that is a fun read due to it's interest and validation of something humanity created during less scientific times.

Doctors don't look for applications of fixing a broken leg. Driving instructors don't teach you the uses of driving. That's your job.

CBT and DBT use approaches where you are taught methods that would help a little bit, if done once, but a lot if done many times, and so rely on extremely frequent application.

So CBT and DBT advocates, often tend to say their methods can be used (almost) anywhere, in order to encourage usage.

They also tend to teach several methods, so that users have several methods to choose from, to increase usage.
I'm not clear on DBT application, sounds like talk therapy with specific affirmations. The definition I got impresses it's just psychotherapy with science behind it. More thinking functions, though with the intention of reframing and reducing emotions.

CBT seems to focus on disruptive thoughts, but CBT is a mechanism to apply a strategy. It's not clear WHEN the treatment becomes effective.

We aren't quite sure, but to me, CBT is playing a part so that it's easy for the user to get to their emotions, which are the root of the problem.

I suppose in a way that it's using multiple functions, but the emotional side is lacking. It's possible that some of these treatments can be bypassed if we get good at diagnosing what someone's problems are. But when we are just slapping someone with anything, that is the result we are going to get.

No doctor is inclined to reffer a patient outside their practice, that is another problem we have.

What you're looking for, is applications, to know WHEN to apply each one. I.E. (1) when a method will be successful (1), how successful each method would be in each situation (2), and thus which methods would work best in each situation (3).

You're most likely looking for just (3), so you know which method to use in each situation, to maximise your benefits. But someone has to work out (1) & (2), to compute (3).

To know that, you have to test each method as far as possible, so you know when you've hit the limits of each method. In other words, you have to look for failure.

This desire to find the objective limits of each method, is at odds with the desire to maximise application by increasing usage, by convincing as many as possible that any of these methods could work almost everywhere.

What you want, is a system, something systematic for mental health, someone like a life coach with some training in psychotherapy, who can advise you which mental health tools would be best for your personal needs.
Yes, the system should begin with finding out what is going to help and what is not going to help. Not filtering someone through various treatments

A coach would be nice, but I doubt these are systematic. I've thought that this is a niche that is missing, and one could apply themselves towards doing very easily where I live. I doubt infrastructure could be built around it, it's a very cooky thing in most peoples eyes to say you have a life coach. Even knowing the value of having one, I picture a stereotype scammer giving you basic advice about life.
 
Top Bottom