Taking MBTT too seriously

[snegledmaca]

Uhm, is it me or do some people here seem to take MBTT a little too seriously?

[toonia]

Originally Posted by snegledmaca

Uhm, is it me or do some people here seem to take MBTT a little too seriously?

I'm thinking it's not you.

But oh my yes. You hit the nail on the head, toots. It's a theory, not a fact, interesting, but not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. That's why I really appreciate that this new site doesn't require a field to declare type. Having to wade through the stereotypes associated with whichever type you declare yourself to be is very much like trudging through a field knee-deep in cow patties. A habit can develop in which people's words are twisted to fit the expectations of whatever type the reader is assuming them to possess. IMO it's very important on an MBTI site to have critics and threads exploring the limitations of the system.

[toonia]

Here are a couple of links to threads on other forums critiquing the system.

INTPcentral

INTPcentral

philosophyforums

It is considered pop psychology. The dogmatic approach to it is also pseudo-intellectualism. The stereotyping of people to the extent that certain behaviors are expected of them based on their type with the assumption that there is nothing they can do to change it, has gone beyond reason. That is pristine prejudice. It isn't even close to Jung's original theories. People use it as a way to simplify the world and justify ideas that otherwise have no justification.

It's an interesting theory and I enjoy learning about it and analyzing it. More than that I enjoy critiquing it as a way to balance its apparently natural tendency towards prejudicial thinking. People appear to forget that prejudice towards races and cultures were often justified with pseudo-science throughout the twentieth century.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Daphne

It's an interesting theory and I enjoy learning about it and analyzing it. More than that I enjoy critiquing it as a way to balance its apparently natural tendency towards prejudicial thinking. People appear to forget that prejudice towards races and cultures were often justified with pseudo-science throughout the twentieth century.

btw, we're looking for a few mods for PhrenologyCentral -- anyone interested?

[toonia]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

btw, we're looking for a few mods for PhrenologyCentral -- anyone interested?

I'd probably end up putting a few extra dents in some skulls which would make the system less objective and scientific. Better pass.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Daphne

I'd probably end up putting a few extra dents in some skulls which would make the system less objective and scientific. Better pass.

Ha -- Exactly what I would expect a melancholic endomorph to say!!

[Xander]

It seems to me that most of the criticism against the MBTI theories are that people misuse it and therefore it must be diminished. That doesn't make sense. Merely teach it better surely?

[toonia]

Originally Posted by Xander

It seems to me that most of the criticism against the MBTI theories are that people misuse it and therefore it must be diminished. That doesn't make sense. Merely teach it better surely?

From what I understand that is a big part of it. The other issue is that the theory is not falsifiable. Because of that it cannot be subjected to the scientific process. It is theory, not fact, and should be treated accordingly.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by Daphne

From what I understand that is a big part of it. The other issue is that the theory is not falsifiable. Because of that it cannot be subjected to the scientific process. It is theory, not fact, and should be treated accordingly.

No psychology nor philosophy is scientifically proven. Neither is quantum physics proven. How far does something have to be proven before it is relied upon?

Do you stop with the rope bridge or insist on the golden gate to cross each ravine?

(Note I'm not meaning to attack, just make a point about how relative reliability and proof is.)

[Alienclock]

Originally Posted by Xander

No psychology nor philosophy is scientifically proven. Neither is quantum physics proven. How far does something have to be proven before it is relied upon?

Do you stop with the rope bridge or insist on the golden gate to cross each ravine?

(Note I'm not meaning to attack, just make a point about how relative reliability and proof is.)

I think things ought to be proven before they are relied upon... But thats my opinion, its also my humble opinion that much of psychology and philosophy could be considered "nonsense"... In the sense that some years ago homosexuality was considered an illness. Now they've changed that to reflect popular opinion... As for quantum physics, I can't speak much about that... I imagine they have done some experiments that utilize quantum theory and have had some kind of consistent results... But theory is theory...

I think people take mbti way way too seriously...
Of course we all have different opinions on this one.

Ha -- Exactly what I would expect a melancholic endomorph to say!!

lol