manipulation and MBTI knowledge

[ptgatsby]

And MBTI is not only an unreliable and invalid personality test, but it is not provided by professionals. The fact is MBTI remains as valid and reliable as astrology. So it is no surprise to find that many MBTI aficionados also use astrology.

Yes it is/No it isn't/Yes it is/No, it's not/No, they don't. Shoo.

--

Anyway, MBTI can be used to help understand people - which is all you need for it to help you manipulate them. It isn't terribly efficient at doing so since it isn't its purpose... This comes down to an often-repeated comment of mine: ask the questions you want answered. If you want to know how to seduce someone, you gain more from looking at a much narrower set of questions - insecurities, for instance. These don't mirror general personality so well. On the other hand, if you want to know how a relationship would develop, I'd look at attachment styles.

However, you do gain a fair bit by observing along the different axises in MBTI. Keep in mind that behavior stems from all 4 (5/10/12/16/20/etc.) measurements that the system uses. So, if you observe certain behaviors, you can generalize them back to what generates them.

A classic example is with I/E - it is generally thought the root cause of this comes down to the reward system. Introverts tend to be relatively immune to positive thinking (although the biology is counter-intuitive and worth reading if you really want to know), and Es are more addicted to the feedback. Outside of MBTI, you get the opposite with 'Neuroticism'... so there are more dimensions to consider. If you keep within what MBTI can do, then it's useful. So, you can generalise that Is will want less interaction and Es will seek it out - not surprising, but quantifiable. In reality, most people are somewhere in the middle and fluctuate, but the bias helps you understand how to interact (ie: influence) with them.

So, MBTI works just fine as a framework, so long as you understand what you are describing. Interactive effects (namely, functions) are better understood in the validated portions of MBTI, and not the other way around - that is, don't read functions and expect to be able to predict people's behavior from them. Instead, break down the behavior you can see into your 'measurement scheme' (like MBTI's 4 buckets) and generalize what the scheme would be. This is important because even within each MBTI axis (like most systems), there are subcategories that correlate together... which means it is actually pretty rare to have all sub-categories roll together perfectly into the higher categories (never mind into interactive effects, like functions.)

 

[sculpting]

A classic example is with I/E - it is generally thought the root cause of this comes down to the reward system. Introverts tend to be relatively immune to positive thinking (although the biology is counter-intuitive and worth reading if you really want to know), and Es are more addicted to the feedback. Outside of MBTI, you get the opposite with 'Neuroticism'... so there are more dimensions to consider. If you keep within what MBTI can do, then it's useful. So, you can generalise that Is will want less interaction and Es will seek it out - not surprising, but quantifiable. In reality, most people are somewhere in the middle and fluctuate, but the bias helps you understand how to interact (ie: influence) with them.

.)

I actually would be interested in learning more about this-do you have some suggested topics I could go pub-med hunting on ? Books or websites perhaps? I have heard thoughts of innate enrgy levels and extroverts requiring more stimulation to maintain sufficient arosal levels as compared to introverts but would like to learn more.

 

[Thalassa]

If you don't know what I'm talking about it has nothing to do with you? Who said anything about private messages? What private messages?

Let's see: a handful of people were arguing about the validity of MBTI and it's potential for manipulating others. You, on the other hand, were finding cryptic coded messages within these arguments and asking why people were doing this to you? And you said something about how it would take four or five months for others to figure out why you were acting like this?

True, I'm new so I don't know the full dynamics of what's going on, but your behavior in this forum was bizarre to the point of hilarity.

 

[ptgatsby]

I actually would be interested in learning more about this-do you have some suggested topics I could go pub-med hunting on ? Books or websites perhaps? I have heard thoughts of innate enrgy levels and extroverts requiring more stimulation to maintain sufficient arosal levels as compared to introverts but would like to learn more.

I'm afraid I don't have much anymore - I purged my mailbox here after I finished discussing this... almost a couple of years ago now, I guess (!).

This thread was the last that I remember it being talked about. This post/paper might also give you a good search start (done with NEO, but the principles should be similar).

 

[simulatedworld]

Do you really think I'm stupid enough to fall for this? If the original proprietors were still in control of this forum my off topic posts would have been long gone and I would have been on the receiving end of a good private message spanking by now. I'm a reasonable guy. If you want something, why don't you just ask?

I wasn't even talking to you. The only time I referenced you at all was echoing jag's comment about emotional outbursts.

Seriously, what are you even talking about?

 

[simulatedworld]

A person with depth is not the same as "in depth."

Can you elaborate on this?

What is so "unrealistic" about asking something so simple of a theory, that it provide for those to be grouped together who are truly similar?
There are loads of people who straddle the polarities,
and yet they are thrown into the same group as if they are all the same.
Well they are not.

"Truly similar" is obviously subjective. If you don't find that MBTI's method groups people into similar enough categories to be useful, you don't have to use it. The people you mentioned in your ENTJ example would still have a lot of things in common from being E, T and J...you just have to view these things in a more general form than specific functional orders will allow if you want any real use out of them.

I'm surprised to see you claiming what I can or cannot declare about MBTI,
when you don't even use MBTI the way it was originally intended.
I'm referring to function order. That's a bit hypocritical of you.

ENTP doesn't just yield a percentage of E-N-T-P,
it implies a dominant function, and on down the function order line.

So in a way, you are claiming it invalid since you don't even use the original structure,
created by Myers and Briggs.[/QUOTE]

You're right, actually. I've only recently come to that conclusion myself. If exact function order is the only real problem you have with MBTI, we're probably in the same boat!

Only if you let me throw you out with it,
since I have been known to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Heheh, fair. It seems I've made a mistake in assuming that most people approach MBTI with a healthy skepticism of exact functional orders--it seemed the only reasonable way to expect any real use from the system, so I just assumed everyone was using it that way.

The cool part about the way I use it personally is that it doesn't really attempt to measure each letter against the others; it just denotes preference on four independent variables.

You guys are right--in its original form it's pretty ridiculous, but it can be made useful pretty easily by just throwing out the function order crap and considering the four dichotomies in a more general sense.

 

[matmos]

I wasn't even talking to you. The only time I referenced you at all was echoing jag's comment about emotional outbursts.

Seriously, what are you even talking about?

It's called free speech. And I defend to the death LostInNerSpace's right to his say.

So, pray continue, LostInNerSpace. Get it off your chest. As Robert Burns once said: "Better oot than in".

Exorcise your ghosts.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Oh boy, here comes Captain Conspiracy Cat to avert another life-threatening tragedy.

What is it this time, kitty? Now I'm campaigning against the principle of freedom of speech because I asked him what he's talking about?

I can't remember suggesting anything even remotely related to censorship of free speech.

*checks thread*

Nope, sure didn't.

Geez man, you really need to get your Ni polished. It's totally covered in cataracts! lolz

 

[Jaguar]

And you said something about how it would take four or five months for others to figure out why you were acting like this?

I don't need 4 or 5 months to figure it out.
This is about "competition," as in Typology forums.
Somewhere underneath this bitter angry shit is an ownership issue.
Business.

I wrote: "The board is called Typology Central, not MBTI Central."

Banana wrote: "An excellent point. The answer to which lies in the reason for the name change.
A good psychologist would like to promulgate his ideas; a good businessman would prefer to suffocate any competition."

INTP poster wrote: Next time I will go work for the competition and the whole world will know why.
I don't like the competition.

If memory serves me, this board used to be called MBTI Central.

MBTI Central: A Place Where You Non-INTPs Can Go - INTP Central

So here's what I want to know:
Who owned MBTI Central?
Did someone screw over the owners of MBTI Central,
and start this forum on their own?
Did the paranoid INTP poster have a job with the old owner,
but got left out in the cold when this forum began,
thus resulting in being one pissed off mother*ucker,
who now stalks this forum?

Who the hell really knows?

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Let's entertain some paranoid delusions for a minute. Let's call these anonymous individuals the animal spirits. So the animal spirits say they are trying to help me but instead I create chaos all over the place. Bull honkey! When have the animal spirits tried to do anything for me? What precisely have they tried to do for me?

Then I get some cryptic tweets leading me to a suspiciously designed web site that seems to be asking me to do something. Why should I? It takes a whole lot of effort to do that. They sweep me under the carpet, treat me like crap and expect me to be happy?

 

[ptgatsby]

Who the hell really knows?

Not surprisingly, the people that were there when it happened. All of it is public, as well, if you want to investigate.

Still comical, although it'd be funnier to me if it didn't clog up unrelated threads.

 

[Thalassa]

I don't need 4 or 5 months to figure it out.
This is about "competition," as in Typology forums.
Somewhere underneath this bitter angry shit is an ownership issue.
Business.

I wrote: "The board is called Typology Central, not MBTI Central."

Banana wrote: "An excellent point. The answer to which lies in the reason for the name change.
A good psychologist would like to promulgate his ideas; a good businessman would prefer to suffocate any competition."

INTP poster wrote: Next time I will go work for the competition and the whole world will know why.
I don't like the competition.

If memory serves me, this board used to be called MBTI Central.

MBTI Central: A Place Where You Non-INTPs Can Go - INTP Central

So here's what I want to know:
Who owned MBTI Central?
Did someone screw over the owners of MBTI Central,
and start this forum on their own?
Did the paranoid INTP poster have a job with the old owner,
but got left out in the cold when this forum began,
thus resulting in being one pissed off mother*ucker,
who now stalks this forum?

Who the hell really knows?

Thanks for the enlightenment. I love a good mystery.

 

[Thalassa]

Still comical, although it'd be funnier to me if it didn't clog up unrelated threads.

See, I'm the opposite. For funny, sometimes I love the juxtaposition of nonsense with the rational... the absurd, the random humanity.

 

[Jaguar]

Can you elaborate on this?

No. I shouldn't have to elaborate on what a person with DEPTH means.
Right about now, I am certain I am not ENTP.

You're right, actually. I've only recently come to that conclusion myself. If exact function order is the only real problem you have with MBTI, we're probably in the same boat!

There is no MBTI theory without function order.
Don't you get that?
You can't do it your way and still call it MBTI.

Heheh, fair. It seems I've made a mistake in assuming that most people approach MBTI with a healthy skepticism of exact functional orders--it seemed the only reasonable way to expect any real use from the system, so I just assumed everyone was using it that way.

Never assume anything.

On this board, in another area, was this verbal exchange about Barack Obama:

"There seems to be a consensus of sorts on Barack's type,
with most believing him to be ENFJ."

"You really think his fourth function is Ti?
I can't buy into that.
His thinking function would most likely be first or second, not fourth.
He's far too strategic and logical to be Fe dom."

Now, clearly this person thinks an ENFJ has a predetermined function order,
as if all ENFJ's are burped out of their mother's womb that way.

I don't think people have healthy skepticism about this predetermined function order at all.
Quite the contrary!

 

[Jaguar]

Not surprisingly, the people that were there when it happened. All of it is public, as well, if you want to investigate.
Still comical, although it'd be funnier to me if it didn't clog up unrelated threads.

I don't want to investigate a sociopath.
Lol.

 

[Mole]

And the name change from MBTI Central to Typology Central was good luck.

It was good luck because Typology Central now includes MBTI as well as Wilhelm Reich's book, "Character Analysis".

And, "Character Analysis", is intellectually and morally superior to MBTI.

As, "Character Analysis", is still on the curriculum of University Psychology Departments.

While MBTI has been consigned to the rubbish bin along with astrology and alchemy and creationism.

 

[Synarch]

And the name change from MBTI Central to Typology Central was good luck.

It was good luck because Typology Central now includes MBTI as well as Wilhelm Reich's book, "Character Analysis".

And, "Character Analysis", is intellectually and morally superior to MBTI.

As, "Character Analysis", is still on the curriculum of University Psychology Departments.

While MBTI has been consigned to the rubbish bin along with astrology and alchemy and creationism.

Where's the Reichian stuff?

 

[ptgatsby]

...

I never thought people would be so motivated to slander theories and support others based on their perceived relationship to Nazis... Seriously man, common. Reich?

 

[Jaguar]

And the name change from MBTI Central to Typology Central was good luck.

I don't think it was luck; it was smart to change the name.

 

[Mole]

Where's the Reichian stuff?

I am drawing attention to the cognitive dissonance between the works of Carl Jung and the works of Wilhelm Reich.

And it's true that Central has been a mono-conversation based on the works of Carl Jung.

But since we have fortuitously become Typology Central, we can now have a bipolar conversation.

Quite naturally this will lead to cognitive consonance and cognitive dissonance.

And although it is well known that cognitive dissonance is a sign of learning, it is less well known that cognitive consonance is also a sign of learning.

So I think it is fair to say that as we enter the cognitive world, we engage our minds and start to think.

I remember as a little boy asking my father what they do at the University. He paused and thought for a while and said, "They think".