manipulation and MBTI knowledge

[matmos]

I will delete that last post to show I really don't want that. I don't like the competition. But I bet I could fix them, have fun doing it, and get paid a whole lot of money in the process.

You may have to "square me up" before I edit mine, though.

 

[Jaguar]

I will delete that last post to show I really don't want that. I don't like the competition. But I bet I could fix them, have fun doing it, and get paid a whole lot of money in the process.

What prescription medication are you taking?

 

[simulatedworld]

What are you suggesting here, little gremlins slip into the homes of those who take the MBTI test and "directly observe" their behavior?

No, I'm suggesting that MBTI labels for people are based on personal observations and that all they really do is create arbitrary mental categorizations for them. I watch people, remember how they respond to a given stimulus, group that behavior using MBTI for more efficient categorization, and attempt to use those data sets to predict how they will behave in future related situations.

I'm wrong a lot. In fact, the more balanced a person is, the less useful MBTI is for them--I've found that for some people, it provides little to no added predictability because they have such moderate preferences.

But most people fit closely enough to one or two imaginary archetypes that it provides at least some added degree of predictability to their behavior, and for me it's fun to consider the different possibilities and organize them into a hypothetical framework.

Nobody really fits any of the 16 ideals perfectly--but if you display enough tendencies associated with xxxx type, I will label you as such in my head until further data becomes available such to change my perception of your average overall behavior. In fact, typology is something of an art form, and you could make an argument that it's more art than science--there is certainly a degree of subjectivity in assessing the types of others, especially those that we don't actually know personally. Ultimately, only you can determine which (if any) type you fit best by educating yourself about each type and determining which fits your average behavioral preferences most closely.

This is why you need a lot of data over the long term before your MBTI guesses for people become even reasonably accurate--of course they never reach perfection, but observe enough behavior under enough different conditions over enough trials, and eventually you'll end up with something useful. Personally, I've just chosen MBTI as a convenient nomenclature for it.

 

[matmos]

But I bet I could fix them, have fun doing it, and get paid a whole lot of money in the process.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, it had nothing to do with you.

Ever seen Invasion of The Body Snatchers?

 

[Jaguar]

Banana--

What do you have going on with that deranged woman?
Lol.

 

[Vildechaya]

I resent having to manipulate anyone because it means there is someone else who is controlling my situation who I must impress for some imporant reason. It makes me feel like a child. ......In those cases I will do it with STYLE!!!!!!
I do not think that MBTI plays a role in any manipulation I am cornered into doing.
It is very fun to use in play, me my Dad often get in classic NT style debates. we enjoy pushing each others buttons all in good fun.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Nevermind. I get it, I think. I just should not have come back here.

 

[Poki]

No, I'm suggesting that MBTI labels for people are based on personal observations and that all they really do is create arbitrary mental categorizations for them. I watch people, remember how they respond to a given stimulus, group that behavior using MBTI for more efficient categorization, and attempt to use those data sets to predict how they will behave in future related situations.

I'm wrong a lot. In fact, the more balanced a person is, the less useful MBTI is for them--I've found that for some people, it provides little to no added predictability because they have such moderate preferences.

But most people fit closely enough to one or two imaginary archetypes that it provides at least some added degree of predictability to their behavior, and for me it's fun to consider the different possibilities and organize them into a hypothetical framework.

Nobody really fits any of the 16 ideals perfectly--but if you display enough tendencies associated with xxxx type, I will label you as such in my head until further data becomes available such to change my perception of your average overall behavior. In fact, typology is something of an art form, and you could make an argument that it's more art than science--there is certainly a degree of subjectivity in assessing the types of others, especially those that we don't actually know personally. Ultimately, only you can determine which (if any) type you fit best by educating yourself about each type and determining which fits your average behavioral preferences most closely.

This is why you need a lot of data over the long term before your MBTI guesses for people become even reasonably accurate--of course they never reach perfection, but observe enough behavior under enough different conditions over enough trials, and eventually you'll end up with something useful. Personally, I've just chosen MBTI as a convenient nomenclature for it.

You fail because you are trying to predict something using MBTI. Its not meant to be used that way. It is not a tool to predict someone, it is a tool to help understand intentions, motivations, strengths, weaknesses. I think I have typed maybe 4-5 people accurately IRL and thats because I already have a lifetime of knowing who they are, around me and arounds others. The types I can identify the easiest are the types I have spent my life with. I know how they handle stress, what types of things they do for others, how they act when they are happy, etc. I still dont try to predict what they will do.

 

[matmos]

Nevermind. I get it, I think. I just should not have come back here.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

 

[Jaguar]

You fail because you are trying to predict something using MBTI. Its not meant to be used that way. It is not a tool to predict someone, it is a tool to help understand intentions, motivations, strengths, weaknesses.

First of all, I agree with poki that MBTI's use is not to predict.
Ideally, it should be used for what poki suggests.
But then I take issue that MBTI can even be used for such,
since I do not think that "pre-packaged" function orders are what is true of people.
MBTI was created for the masses.
It was not created for accuracy.

If either of you are into research, Google
Singer Loomis SL-TDI
Singer and Loomis decided to test the MBTI assumptions and MBTI failed.

Here's an example of a technical expert's profile:

Introverted Thinking Dominant
Extravert Sensation Auxiliary
Extraverted Thinking Auxiliary
Introverted Feeling Mid-Mode
Introverted Sensation Mid-Mode
Extraverted Intuition Mid-Mode
Introverted Feeling Least Developed
Extraverted Intuition Least Developed

Here's an example of a team leader's profile:

Extraverted Sensation Dominant
Extraverted Thinking Dominant
Extraverted Intuition Auxiliary
Introverted Feeling Mid-Mode
Introverted Thinking Mid-Mode
Introverted Sensing Mid-Mode
Extraverted Feeling Least Developed
Introverted Intuition Least Developed

Immediately you will notice the function order possibilities are now there in the SL-TDI,
that are not permitted in the MBTI.

If you are into serious reading about Singer Loomis SL-TDI:

www.haskayne.ucalgary.ca/haskaynefaculty/files/haskaynefaculty/singer-loomis.pdf

 

[sculpting]

Nevermind. I get it, I think. I just should not have come back here.

It was my thread to begin with. All thoughts are valuable. Please do not leave just due to disagreements.

One of the most imporatnt lessons that working with a team teaches you is that disagreement is required. If I have five technical experts that all agree I am screwed. Once a problem crops up-and it will-then I have one solution, one answer. If I have folks in disgreement then I have five solutions on the back burner in case the first one fails. So please continue to contribute.

You fail because you are trying to predict something using MBTI. Its not meant to be used that way. It is not a tool to predict someone, it is a tool to help understand intentions, motivations, strengths, weaknesses. I think I have typed maybe 4-5 people accurately IRL and thats because I already have a lifetime of knowing who they are, around me and arounds others. The types I can identify the easiest are the types I have spent my life with. I know how they handle stress, what types of things they do for others, how they act when they are happy, etc. I still dont try to predict what they will do.

Poki I have to agree in the other direction. I type the living crap out of folks. I use it to build predictive models of what thier most likely behavior will be and then I mold my interactions accordingly due to what I expect thier needs to be and what I need to get from them (in terms of work stuff hopefully in a nonmanipulative manner). Once I get a male and female example of a given type I can quickly match that onto new folks. However the types I see rarely are very tough still.

For me, it isnt too hard as I have about five types I typically work with: ENTP, INTP, INTJ, as customers, and the same plus ISTJs and a few ESTPs as coworkers. I build my marketing materrials, messaging, software, instrumentation, talks all to fit an Ne/Ti mindest as they are about 80% of my customer auidance. Internally I totally position the message differently if it is the ISTJs or the ESTPs i need to reach.

The beautiful part though is watching the individual flavors of each person inside the broader groupings. I know that my ENTP friend will debate me about topics however MBTI tells me nothing about how he loves his two daughters and worked on a tank in the army and how mediatation changed his lifecourse, or his first date with his wife involved a fetal pig.

 

[Mole]

I type the living crap out of folks. I use it to build predictive models of what thier most likely behavior will be and then I mold my interactions accordingly due to what I expect thier needs to be and what I need to get from them (in terms of work stuff hopefully in a nonmanipulative manner). Once I get a male and female example of a given type I can quickly match that onto new folks. However the types I see rarely are very tough still.

Why not use astrology?

It has a longer pedigree than MBTI.

It is widely accepted across the world.

It is published in most women's magazines and in many newspapers.

And it is widely and readily understood.

Do you think astrology might even be better for your purposes?

 

[LostInNerSpace]

I really couldn't care less about most of you peons. But in-case anyone of any significance reads this. They pushed my thermonuclear launch button in a post somewhere back there. That's why this happened.

Peons: I'm not going to tell what it is. That's too easy. Go and waste more of your life trying to figuring it out. I'll come back in four or five months to see if you got the answer.

 

[simulatedworld]

Immediately you will notice the function order possibilities are now there in the SL-TDI,
that are not permitted in the MBTI.

If you are into serious reading about Singer Loomis SL-TDI:

www.haskayne.ucalgary.ca/haskaynefaculty/files/haskaynefaculty/singer-loomis.pdf

I agree that precise functional orders are ridiculous. I know that this is usually included as part of MBTI theory, but I should note that I don't agree with that part, and that I use MBTI primarily as a system of four independent variables of behavioral preferences.

You fail because you are trying to predict something using MBTI. Its not meant to be used that way. It is not a tool to predict someone, it is a tool to help understand intentions, motivations, strengths, weaknesses. I think I have typed maybe 4-5 people accurately IRL and thats because I already have a lifetime of knowing who they are, around me and arounds others. The types I can identify the easiest are the types I have spent my life with. I know how they handle stress, what types of things they do for others, how they act when they are happy, etc. I still dont try to predict what they will do.

It's apparent that we don't all approach or attempt to utilize MBTI in the same ways.

I use it for the things you mentioned when it comes to people I know well. "Predicting behavior" involves understanding intentions, motivations, etc.; that's just part of the context. I'm trying to predict what people will do in a given particular context based on that understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, and preferences for interacting with the world. It's just giving a name to something we all do already; I don't understand what's so unreasonable about this.

Type reads have varying degrees of accuracy, depending on how much data is available, and I'm sure that plenty of my typological impressions of various people are off. It doesn't really matter because consistent scientific accuracy isn't the point--no matter how many times you care to knock down that straw man--the fact is, my understanding of other individuals and personal interactions with most of them improves when I choose to use this particular arbitrary lens through which to examine their strengths and weaknesses.

It doesn't mean I think this is the only perspective on personality theory, just that in my experience it's proven useful to consider interpersonal connections through a framework based on an externalized system of patterns.

It's simply one perspective to consider. If all the utility I've gotten from it has been sheer luck, then I'll continue to take my chances.

Why not use astrology?

It has a longer pedigree than MBTI.

It is widely accepted across the world.

It is published in most women's magazines and in many newspapers.

And it is widely and readily understood.

Do you think astrology might even be better for your purposes?

You know what? I'm starting to think you're right about this. No joke!

It just dawned on me that I essentially stole MBTI's labels to create my own proprietary system of personality analysis, and that I'm not really using it in the way Meyers and Briggs (or Jung) intended it, or in the way that most people on this forum seem to.

I guess I just assumed that the "cult" to which you refer was so obviously silly that nobody would really follow it--I figured everyone had made the natural leap to taking MBTI with a big grain of salt, and using it only for external categorizations, but apparently many people haven't.

Interesting.

 

[Mole]

If all the utility I've gotten from it has been sheer luck, then I'll continue to take my chances.

You have told us that you admire those who play the game well.

And over very many posts you have made it crystal clear that you do not understand that it is game playing that is the problem.

You clearly do not understand that the price you pay for being a good game player is trust.

And your problem is compounded by the fact that there are quite a few other game players here as well. And you reinforce and validate one another.

And not one of you is able to build a relationship of trust with another human being.

And you do not see this as a problem.

But it is not only a problem, but a tragedy of large proportions.

For reasons we don't know, an important part of your humanity is missing.

But you don't miss it - perhaps you don't miss what you never had.

And you keep on gaming us, and you keep on gaming us, and you keep on gaming us - what else is there for you to do?

 

[Jaguar]

I figured everyone had made the natural leap to taking MBTI with a big grain of salt, and using it only for external categorizations, but apparently many people haven't.

Grain of salt?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
All you have to do is scan the subect lines of this board to know people take this crap seriously.

ENTJ *uckheads
INFP wimps
Sensotard
ENTP assholes

I could go on. Really, the nonsense is astounding.
Many of the lunes on this board treat S's as if they have 0% N,
and N's as if they have 0% S.
Seriously, half the time I laugh at the stupidity and the other half I just shake my head.

I can count on one hand the individuals I deem reasonable on this board.
Thank God they even exist.

 

[Jaguar]

I really couldn't care less about most of you peons. But in-case anyone of any significance reads this. They pushed my thermonuclear launch button in a post somewhere back there. That's why this happened.

Did it make you feel better to have an emotional meltdown in public?
You'd really suck at playing poker.

 

[simulatedworld]

You have told us that you admire those who play the game well.

And over very many posts you have made it crystal clear that you do not understand that it is game playing that is the problem.

You clearly do not understand that the price you pay for being a good game player is trust.

And your problem is compounded by the fact that there are quite a few other game players here as well. And you reinforce and validate one another.

And not one of you is able to build a relationship of trust with another human being.

And you do not see this as a problem.

But it is not only a problem, but a tragedy of large proportions.

For reasons we don't know, an important part of your humanity is missing.

But you don't miss it - perhaps you don't miss what you never had.

And you keep on gaming us, and you keep on gaming us, and you keep on gaming us - what else is there for you to do?

Question: How is it that you know enough about me to know that I don't have any honest relationships with people in real life?

I've told you that I approach this message board like a game, yes, and indeed I use game theory applications in many aspects of my life.

But I'm not game-playing with everyone I know--only people with whom I'm forced to interact but don't really want to. (EDIT: Also with people on a message board which I am approaching mostly as a game in the first place.)

I have a relatively small group of close friends and family with whom I am much more genuine, and I'm curious as to how you've decided that you know these relationships don't exist for me.

Grain of salt?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
All you have to do is scan the subect lines of this board to know people take this crap seriously.

ENTJ *uckheads
INFP wimps
Sensotard
ENTP assholes

I could go on. Really, the nonsense is astounding.
Many of the lunes on this board treat S's as if they have 0% N,
and N's as if they have 0% S.
Seriously, half the time I laugh at the stupidity and the other half I just shake my head.

I can count on one hand the individuals I deem reasonable on this board.
Thank God they even exist.

Haha well, I can't argue with the fact that there a lot of people who misinterpret MBTI and try to use it for unrealistic purposes.

But threads like "ENTP assholes" aren't intended to be applied specifically to every member of that group; they're more just general observations that people we've arbitrarily placed in that group have a tendency to be less mindful of the feelings of others. All just general tendencies...

Speaking of poker, I've played a good bit myself, and while you're correct that emotional meltdowns in public aren't too beneficial to one's chip stack, I find it ironic that you've missed the connection between MBTI and the very psychology and personal tendency labeling that goes into successful poker.

It's virtually the same concept. Every time I observe a given behavior in another poker player, I add it to my mental database and slightly adjust my overall perception of the "personality type" of that player. In poker we use terms like "tight/loose" or "passive/aggressive" to give us a general idea of the imaginary archetypes other players most resemble, and then we continue to build an increasingly accurate (though never perfect) mental portrait of the behavioral tendencies exhibited by each opponent. We don't actually assume that any opponent fits these stereotype molds perfectly; we use them only to approximate which groups of tendencies are most similar to those of our opponents.

Asking me to prove scientifically that tight passive players exist is so brutally missing the point it's hardly even worth addressing. "Tight passive player" is an arbitrarily made up label to describe a given set of observed behaviors, and its function as a categorization system in poker is no different from MBTI's function as a categorization system in social and interpersonal interaction.

Obviously anyone who takes "he's a tight passive player" to mean "he folds 100% of the time" is a moron, just as anyone who thinks people of xxxx type behave in a certain way all the time; we're considering the average of all cases in the long term, here. Until you pick up on this inherent limitation of such behavioral analysis systems, you wouldn't be very good at poker either, my friend.

 

[sculpting]

Why not use astrology?

It has a longer pedigree than MBTI.

It is widely accepted across the world.

It is published in most women's magazines and in many newspapers.

And it is widely and readily understood.

Do you think astrology might even be better for your purposes?

Hello rainbow buddy-I am still thinking I promise I will reply.

I tried this one day with horoscopes-moon sign ones I guess. Didnt really work. I mean about 50% accuracy and you could make entertaining correlations but meh, not real significant. Wasnt real useful in the workplace setting either. sorry

 

[Jaguar]

Obviously anyone who takes "he's a tight passive player" to mean "he folds 100% of the time" is a moron, just as anyone who thinks people of xxxx type behave in a certain way all the time; we're considering the average of all cases in the long term, here. Until you pick up on this inherent limitation of such behavioral analysis systems, you wouldn't be very good at poker either, my friend.

You're a mental snorkeler.
I'm a mental scuba diver.

Two different approaches.
Neither is right or wrong.