User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 180

  1. #71
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greed View Post
    Is it possible to disregard what it's "supposed" to be and instead just embrace it as a tool wherever it would be useful to do so? Because that's how a lot of people tend to approach MBTI.

    I've never heard MBTI discussed in-depth in psychology courses, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has no use, does it?
    But that's what science does, it tries to evaluate the degree to which the theory is useful, makes accurate predictions and so on. And MBTI doesn't do very well, by scientific standards it's not very useful. And why use it at all, when Big Five is such a superior alternative? MBTI offers absolutely nothing Big Five does not... It tries to offer more, but those parts have no validity.
    "Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Wolfgang Amadé Mozart

  2. #72
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    But that's what science does, it tries to evaluate the degree to which the theory is useful, makes accurate predictions and so on. And MBTI doesn't do very well, by scientific standards it's not very useful.
    Ah. Yeah. This makes a lot of sense.

    I'd say that, if a better alternative to typing didn't exist, then MBTI could still be useful. However...

    And why use it at all, when Big Five is such a superior alternative? MBTI offers absolutely nothing Big Five does not... It tries to offer more, but those parts have no validity.
    ...as fan of the Big Five myself, I actually agree with this for the most part. I'd never even thought of the Big Five in the same terms as MBTI, but the Big Five does seem to be better at what MBTI tries to do.

    To MBTI's credit, thinking in terms of the cognitive functions can be useful for self-improvement purposes. Tying them to a personality type or trying to extrapolate anything about a person from them? Not so much.

  3. #73
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    You told me you never took a test,
    and someone "assigned" you that type.
    Now what is real, and what is bullshit?

    How can anyone know you are really INFP?
    Are you saying there is no way to tell which type someone is unless they take a test?

    If so, I strongly disagree.

    And even if you were, why would you propose to such a bigot?

    Find a woman with an actual brain, Victor.
    Women with brains don't decide who to marry,
    using 4 letters.
    Sometimes women with brains give "brainless" reasons for rejections to avoid disclosing the real reason.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  4. #74
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    You are maybe of the opinion that psychology is not a science? MBTI is a personality psychology theory, and can be evaluated by scientific standards, and it doesn't fare very well.
    Umm, no, I didn't say that psychology is not a science. I said that MBTI is not a science.

    It has psychological implications but it isn't scientific. It can't be evaluated scientifically any more than philosophy can.

    The types aren't objectively defined so evaluation of a person's type is ultimately subjective.

    The closest it can come to objectivity is popular opinion among people who've studied it a lot. It's like the critical art world; nobody can really prove anything because it's inherently subjective, but you can get a reasonably good guess from inductive reasoning.

    You can't empirically prove that Citizen Kane is a good film, but that doesn't invalidate the entire field of film critique.

    The form of MBTI that they teach in psychology courses is presented as only one such possible perspective; it's not taught as scientific fact and they make no pretense that it is.

    Does this mean MBTI shouldn't be used in making important decisions like hiring employees? Absolutely! The people who try to use it for objective purposes like this are definitely misapplying it.

    The only people who hold MBTI to a scientific standard are the ones who are insistent on proving that it's useless. They point to the unsubstantiated Jungian function theory upon which it was originally based, and then refuse to acknowledge any later developments upon the system. No one in psychology takes Jung that seriously, but MBTI as a four-independent-variable behavioral trend categorization system still has definite practical uses in terms of perspective over time.

    As I said earlier, it's like philosophy. No one *ever* proves anything in philosophy; their arguments are never "correct" or "incorrect", only "strong" or "weak."

    Until you stop looking for "correct/incorrect" in MBTI--and I know Te hates doing this--you won't get it.

    This is the very definition of
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #75
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Umm, no, I didn't say that psychology is not a science. I said that MBTI is not a science.

    It has psychological implications but it isn't scientific. It can't be evaluated scientifically any more than philosophy can.

    The types aren't objectively defined so evaluation of a person's type is ultimately subjective.

    The closest it can come to objectivity is popular opinion among people who've studied it a lot. It's like the critical art world; nobody can really prove anything because it's inherently subjective, but you can get a reasonably good guess from inductive reasoning.

    You can't empirically prove that Citizen Kane is a good film, but that doesn't invalidate the entire field of film critique.

    The form of MBTI that they teach in psychology courses is presented as only one such possible perspective; it's not taught as scientific fact and they make no pretense that it is.

    Does this mean MBTI shouldn't be used in making important decisions like hiring employees? Absolutely! The people who try to use it for objective purposes like this are definitely misapplying it.

    The only people who hold MBTI to a scientific standard are the ones who are insistent on proving that it's useless. They point to the unsubstantiated Jungian function theory upon which it was originally based, and then refuse to acknowledge any later developments upon the system. No one in psychology takes Jung that seriously, but MBTI as a four-independent-variable behavioral trend categorization system still has definite practical uses in terms of perspective over time.

    As I said earlier, it's like philosophy. No one *ever* proves anything in philosophy; their arguments are never "correct" or "incorrect", only "strong" or "weak."

    Until you stop looking for "correct/incorrect" in MBTI--and I know Te hates doing this--you won't get it.

    This is the very definition of
    You know, MBTI makes a lot of claims about the human mind, many of which are testable. The fact that the theory is not clearly defining functions and so on, just means that it is a hard to test, bad pseudoscience-like theory. Jungian functions are simply bullshit, the brain doesn't work that way. The theory is beyond laughable. Any neuroscientist would tell you. If it has no scientific validity, then it simply has no objective usefulness, and any perceived usefulness will be false, just like in the case of astrology. Any perceived usefulness is due to confirmation bias.
    "Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Wolfgang Amadé Mozart

  6. #76
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    You know, MBTI makes a lot of claims about the human mind, many of which are testable. The fact that the theory is not clearly defining functions and so on, just means that it is a hard to test, bad pseudoscience-like theory. Jungian functions are simply bullshit, the brain doesn't work that way. The theory is beyond laughable. Any neuroscientist would tell you. If it has no scientific validity, then it simply has no objective usefulness, and any perceived usefulness will be false, just like in the case of astrology. Any perceived usefulness is due to confirmation bias.
    I suppose we have differing definitions of usefulness.

    For me, anything that allows me to look at something from a different perspective and potentially understand it a little bit better is useful.

    And arbitrarily categorizing people into a logical intuitive system has helped me learn how to better appreciate the needs and perspectives of others and improve my overall personal relations.

    I agree that the functions are mostly garbage.

    But it's a mistake to say that nothing without scientific validity is useful, you Te-nut, you.

    MBTI as interpreted by reasonable people is subjective, and you can't expect objective measurements from a subjective system. The "test" only gives you a rough idea; since the 16 archetypes are just arbitrary constructs, most people fit one better than the others.

    I don't suppose it means anything to you that INTJs are comparatively likely to mistake perspective for methodology, as you are doing now, does it?

    If you're working within a system where making scheduled, objectively measureable progress is a priority, you shouldn't look to subjective systems like MBTI. MBTI is purely philosophic in nature--the only point is looking at things through different lenses, not making scientific progress.

    I get a lot of this "zomg it's not PROVEN!!!" from people, but those people are making an assumption that I take everything MBTI says on faith and apply it automatically to every person in a type.

    I don't; I just formed a hypothetical ideal of each of 16 arbitrarily defined personality archetypes and then categorized everyone I know into whichever they fit most closely--some are borderline between two or more types. It's less useful for them...but most people's behavior shows enough general patterns that it's somewhat useful, anyway.

    Do I base all of my personal interaction decisions on it? No, of course not--but it does help me to collect my thoughts and direct them toward how best to get along with someone, and that's worth it to me.

    It's not a methodology; it's just an arbitrary grouping. Typology is far more like an art form than a science, anyway.

    Look, NTJs...imagine that you're trying to guess the next card that will be dealt from a deck. If I tell you for certain that it is not a spade, you still don't have any objectively verifiable data about what card is coming, but you do know a little bit more than you did before. It's a piece of a puzzle that makes you guess correctly just a little bit more often--NOT consistently by any means, just more often than you otherwise would have.

    To Te, that information doesn't help us in any meaningful way because it can't be applied to any external organizational task with any degree of specificity. But to Ne+Ti, it's a playground--we love to observe external patterns and place everything into an internal framework, just for the joy of completing the puzzle.

    It rounds out our outlook on life, which may not sound like a worthwhile goal to you. Most NTJs wouldn't get a philosophy degree and it's plain to see why--but try to step out of the "Te bubble" for a minute?

    Do you think that INTJ descriptions fit you better than those of other types?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #77
    Wannabe genius Splittet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I suppose we have differing definitions of usefulness.

    For me, anything that allows me to look at something from a different perspective and potentially understand it a little bit better is useful.

    And arbitrarily categorizing people into a logical intuitive system has helped me learn how to better appreciate the needs and perspectives of others and improve my overall personal relations.

    I agree that the functions are mostly garbage.

    But it's a mistake to say that nothing without scientific validity is useful, you Te-nut, you.

    MBTI as interpreted by reasonable people is subjective, and you can't expect objective measurements from a subjective system. The "test" only gives you a rough idea; since the 16 archetypes are just arbitrary constructs, most people fit one better than the others.

    I don't suppose it means anything to you that INTJs are comparatively likely to mistake perspective for methodology, as you are doing now, does it?

    If you're working within a system where making scheduled, objectively measureable progress is a priority, you shouldn't look to subjective systems like MBTI. MBTI is purely philosophic in nature--the only point is looking at things through different lenses, not making scientific progress.

    I get a lot of this "zomg it's not PROVEN!!!" from people, but those people are making an assumption that I take everything MBTI says on faith and apply it automatically to every person in a type.

    I don't; I just formed a hypothetical ideal of each of 16 arbitrarily defined personality archetypes and then categorized everyone I know into whichever they fit most closely--some are borderline between two or more types. It's less useful for them...but most people's behavior shows enough general patterns that it's somewhat useful, anyway.

    Do I base all of my personal interaction decisions on it? No, of course not--but it does help me to collect my thoughts and direct them toward how best to get along with someone, and that's worth it to me.

    It's not a methodology; it's just an arbitrary grouping. Typology is far more like an art form than a science, anyway.

    Look, NTJs...imagine that you're trying to guess the next card that will be dealt from a deck. If I tell you for certain that it is not a spade, you still don't have any objectively verifiable data about what card is coming, but you do know a little bit more than you did before. It's a piece of a puzzle that makes you guess correctly just a little bit more often--NOT consistently by any means, just more often than you otherwise would have.

    To Te, that information doesn't help us in any meaningful way because it can't be applied to any external organizational task with any degree of specificity. But to Ne+Ti, it's a playground--we love to observe external patterns and place everything into an internal framework, just for the joy of completing the puzzle.

    It rounds out our outlook on life, which may not sound like a worthwhile goal to you. Most NTJs wouldn't get a philosophy degree and it's plain to see why--but try to step out of the "Te bubble" for a minute?

    Do you think that INTJ descriptions fit you better than those of other types?
    I have explained that the only potential validity of MBTI, is to view it as a weak form of Big Five. There are actual differences between different types, it's just that Big Five is much better at getting at those fundamental differences. Therefore there is no reason to use MBTI over Big Five.

    MBTI is not a philosophy, its aim is to explain and describe personality differences, and that sounds like a personality psychological theory to me. It's terribly bad however, because it's so imprecise, making it very hard, but not impossible, to test. The same can be said for psychoanalysis.

    What part of philosophy is MBTI supposed to fit? Metaphysics? Epistemology? Ethics? Political philosophy? Logic? Give me a break!
    "Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Wolfgang Amadé Mozart

  8. #78
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    What part of philosophy is MBTI supposed to fit? Metaphysics? Epistemology? Ethics? Political philosophy? Logic?
    Anecdotal evidence, hasty generalisation & confirmation bias. The realm of the pub know-it-all.

    This might be relevant.

    The NonSequitur

  9. #79
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Sometimes women with brains give "brainless" reasons for rejections to avoid disclosing the real reason.
    Very much the truth.

    Victor, sorry for your loss but perhaps it is time to move on. Whether MBTI is seen as valid in your eyes or not, she is the one who took the theory to such an extreme. If she chooses to live her life that way, she is obviously not a perfect match for the person I seem to think you are.

    That being said, I think MBTI has been an extremely valuable tool, fallible or not.

  10. #80
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Splittet View Post
    I have explained that the only potential validity of MBTI, is to view it as a weak form of Big Five. There are actual differences between different types, it's just that Big Five is much better at getting at those fundamental differences. Therefore there is no reason to use MBTI over Big Five.

    MBTI is not a philosophy, its aim is to explain and describe personality differences, and that sounds like a personality psychological theory to me. It's terribly bad however, because it's so imprecise, making it very hard, but not impossible, to test. The same can be said for psychoanalysis.

    What part of philosophy is MBTI supposed to fit? Metaphysics? Epistemology? Ethics? Political philosophy? Logic? Give me a break!

    Man, what is it with Te doms that makes this concept SO difficult?

    It is not supposed to be testable any more than you can test any other subjective form of thought. The fact that you can invent a test to test it for something it doesn't even purport to do is entirely irrelevant.

    It doesn't fit into an area of philosophy because I didn't say it was philosophy--I said it was SIMILAR to philosophy in that it's inherently subjective and therefore we shouldn't expect scientific proof from it.

    "It sounds like a psychology theory to me"? Well, it's not. Anyone claiming that it is is incorrect/lying. Can you get over that now?

    Once AGAIN, it's like art critique. You can't prove or disprove any of it, because none of it is objectively verifiable. For the love of God, it doesn't function within deductive reasoning and nobody thinks it does, so quit setting up straw men and knocking them down just to make yourselves feel all tingly inside.

    Are NTJs really this bad at Ne and Ti? I mean seriously guys, how can you all be this obtuse? It's not a difficult concept. Much like philosophy, (but not actually an area of philosophy, thanks for the words in my mouth) it doesn't have to apply to a measureable goal to have perceptual uses.

    Would you agree with the following four statements?

    1) Some people prefer spending time alone more often than time with others, and vice versa.
    2) Some people prefer to trust concrete sensory information over abstract/hypothetical information, and vice versa.
    3) Some people prefer to trust impersonal analysis over the personal/subjective side of things, and vice versa.
    4) Some people prefer to have plans/schedules/routines, while others prefer to keep options open and avoid having things set in stone.

    These four observations are obvious simply from viewing the world around us.

    How, exactly, can you show scientifically that this is not true?

    All we're doing with MBTI is arbitrarily placing people into categories based on these very generalized preferences. Then we discuss, SUBJECTIVELY, which archetypes we think real people most closely resemble.

    Can we ever prove any of these type guesses?

    NO.

    Do we expect scientific precision from such a vague concept with such a huge margin of error?

    NO.

    Does MBTI have scientific applications?

    NO.

    Are you really proving anything by repeatedly holding MBTI up to a standard it was never meant to be held to?

    NO, NO, and NO.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. The Grand List of Anime MBTI Types
    By LunarMoon in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1092
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 07:04 PM
  2. The MBTI types of MLB stars.
    By ferunandesu in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-05-2008, 04:53 PM
  3. What's the MBTI of..
    By Alfa Prime in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 08:59 PM
  4. Tone of the MBTI forum...
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-30-2007, 02:24 PM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO