User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 45

  1. #11
    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 greed View Post
    Basically, here:



    But yeah.

    I agree with you in that it shouldn't be looked at objectively or for anything that requires scientific verifiability. The fact that the Meyers and Briggs Foundation purports reliability doesn't change this.

    It fares much better in terms of what the armchair typology community can do with it than what it was originally intended to do.
    Wow...I guess they didn't do a whole lot of extensive testing.

    Whatever, they're fooling themselves. Even if people did test 3+ categories the same 75-90% of the time, which they probably don't, the only scientific data that gives you is their preferences on the particular questions given. You can't really extrapolate that into a conceptual model that summarizes a type's preferences without using induction, hence the inherent problem of subjective bias.

    Typology is unscientific by nature and acknowledging that from the beginning is paramount.

    I vote we start using NSTT, New Subjective Typology Theory. I just made that up, and I'm going to call our version of typology that from now on.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #12
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Toonia began this thread as an attempt to find evidence in support of or against MBTI. You're turning this into any other thread about the validity of MBTI. Victor et al. starts threads about it's validity nearly every other week. Please take this elsewhere and let's have at least one place on the forum where those of us who want to see some evidence can use as a resource.

    That being said:

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    lol. Good job American Psychological Association; you've discovered straw men.

    "Microscope of validity"? Are you serious? How do you test the "validity" of a system that's inherently unscientific because there are no standardized definitions of the types? Really, how on Earth do you do that?
    Well you seem to take MBTI/Typology pretty seriously. How do you justify your use of it when it doesn't even hold true for MOST people? You can only type people who fall within it's nebulous dichotomies. Most casual users of MBTI have not been properly trained to ascertain a person's type. BTW, what does it mean to be trained to operate something? Why would you need training in something that does nothing? Why do you need to be a qualified professional to administer MBTI if it's not valid or at least thinks it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    What scientific principle do you think it is that MBTI intends to establish with objective certainty? (HINT: There isn't one.)
    I think one of the reasons why I can't really get with what you say is because I'm the type of person to research and study things, believe it or not. I can't just believe something without seeing how it stands up against measurable criteria. I work in the mental health field with psychiatrists and psychologists and whenever MBTI is mentioned (and it's mentioned often!) a collective eyeroll ensues. It's pop psychology and nothing more.

    But fine let's go to the official MBTI website and see what it says it will do. Let the thing speak for itself.

    From the official publisher of the REAL MBTI https://www.cpp.com/en/index.aspx

    CPP, publisher of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® assessment, provides the highest quality, scientifically-backed tools and solutions for maximizing the performance of individuals, leaders, and teams worldwide. CPP products are used to optimize employee potential, build strong teams, coach leaders, reduce workplace conflict and select, nurture and retain top talent.
    You can see more of what the official instruments say it does here: https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx

    MBTI says, (not simulatedworld says) that this is a scientifically-backed tool but science isn't backing it, science is saying that it's a bucket of steaming hot crap. So simulatedworld says it's not supposed to be measuring anything valid, but THE THING ITSELF says it is. Perhaps you should begin correspondence with CPP and expose them for what they are or enlighten them to their real purpose. Because evidently they say what they peddle is legit and if it's not then they're lying and misguiding consumers. If it is, it's up for grabs under scrutiny and it's not doing so well. Ever heard of snake oil?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If you're trying to test the reliability of the various "MBTI tests" running around, you won't find much because it's not intended as a scientifically reliable test. It's just a vague guess that may or may not help you in determining which of the 16 *imaginary* archetypes you fit closest to.

    MBTI is an arbitrary labeling system for data organization. It is a frame of reference, NOT a scientific methodology, and as such cannot be judged in terms of scientific validity.
    I agree with you, but it says it is scientifically valid. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm frankly shocked that the APA could be this short-sighted. When did Myers or Briggs or Keirsey or any of those authors ever claim scientifically verifiable and reproducible test results? I mean good lord, the sheer will power it takes to ignore this discrepancy...
    I don't see this as being short-sighted. Short-sighted is that the MBTI is so unimportant that they don't even bother testing it. If you do a literature search on MBTI validity, a lot of research into it's validity has happened, which to me indicates that people DO wonder if it can do what it says it does and are testing it out to see if it's true. To me that indicates there is some possible usefulness of MBTI but it's not doing what it says it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You guys are missing the point, and badly. In order for MBTI to even be "testable" it would have to purport to give the same results to the same people consistently, but it changes with how people are feeling that day, not to mention the host of other problems with the testing process itself.
    You're right about that, which is yet more proof that it's probably not worth the paper it's printed on.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I've seen people test ISFJ and then figure out later from studying the archetypes that they're actually closer to INTJ, etc. etc....this stuff has such a huge "margin of error" (which is technically the wrong term because we aren't working with measurable data here anyway.) The whole "MBTI test" thing was never intended to provide consistent or measurable accuracy; it's just a starting point from which to begin your study and determine for yourself which type may fit you best.
    True.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Because career counseling is no more an objective field than typology.
    Disagree. Career counseling is a valid field of study that is more rigorous than what MBTI could ever hope to be.

    A systematic approach to analyzing a worker's skills, abilities and work habits, using information obtained on their education, work experience and general interests. This information is then organized into general categories of people, data and things, and further analyzed to fit into the occupational requirements of other jobs.
    If I were counseling people as to how to choose a career that makes them happy, and if using some arbitrary, non-scientific system like MBTI to compare themselves to others helped them do this more effectively, then why not? Any perspective I can look at that helps me better understand my own needs and wants is probably going to be helpful here.

    Agree with that, but you'll notice that career counseling goes into more depth with an individual than simply checking a few boxes on a test. Career counseling takes a more holistic approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Obviously we wouldn't want to base this decision entirely on something so iffy, but it's just one perspective to look at. So many people's criticisms of MBTI seem to consist of, "But it'll lead you astray if it's the only thing you ever trust 100% of the time!"

    Umm yeah, no shit?
    But for many people here it is the only thing they trust. Look at how many threads that pop up giving A/S/L/Type, "how do I do XXXX type to like me?" People are mentally lazy and think that they've figured out the whole of the person simply by knowing their type code. The proof is all around you on the forum are you looking at it?

    Simulated, when you make claims at least try to make them defensible, OK? If I'm going to stand out on a limb and make absurd claims I'm at least going to try to find some evidence to bake it up. Which is what toonia was doing when she opened up the thread. You and so many other people love MBTI to death because you can make all types of spurious claims and have zero evidence to back your it up. Then when someone hands you evidence to the contrary you fall back upon the old IT'S JUST THEORY! bag of nothing.

    Unfortunately, many people here don't treat MBTI as just theory, some people here have a religious devotion to MBTI. They've latched onto it for whatever reasons they have and it's become overinflated and taken on proportions it should never have.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  3. #13
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greed View Post
    Basically, here:



    But yeah.

    I agree with you in that it shouldn't be looked at objectively or for anything that requires scientific verifiability. The fact that the Meyers and Briggs Foundation purports reliability doesn't change this.

    It fares much better in terms of what the armchair typology community can do with it than what it was originally intended to do.
    Agreed.

    Typology's worth is subjective. I see typology as a tool. It's neither true nor false. It just is. It's what you do with it that matters.

    Like optimism. You can't measure it objectively. But that doesn't matter. What matters is : are you optimistic? Do you want to be optimistic? Would optimism benefit you in any way?

  4. #14
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It's all a bunch of conjecture based on the arbitrary decisions to make up common terminology to describe what we see other people doing. We start with the set "all possible behavior" and then categorize it into letter-named categories accordingly. What you STILL somehow don't understand is that this requires no external validation because it's not actually an external methodology. (Amusingly, you're displaying a lack of Ni here by not realizing that all the terminology and symbolism in the system is an arbitrarily defined function of perception, which cannot be externally verified in any objective manner.)
    Kiersey applied the system to external behaviors. It was Jung who approached it only in terms of internal processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You'd get a very different reaction if you discussed it with philosophers instead of scientific professionals. Do you expect these people to care about a purely conjectural system of arbitrary behavioral categorization with no real scientific applications? Why should they in their line of work?
    I'd like to read what philosophers have said about it. Do you know of any references? In some ways philosophy can be especially rigorous in its application of critical thought, so it would be useful to know how they approach a theory like this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Who cares?
    In a purely social context like a forum it doesn't particularly matter what kinds of thinking skills are being exercised. In the career world, there is an issue worth addressing if an arbitrary system is influencing people's opportunities in employment. A forum like this one seems a reasonable enough place to explore the idea. Even if it is obvious that the system by its nature cannot be measured, it is not being applied as though it is the subjective tool that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Use the parts that work and throw out the ones that don't. You'll notice by reading some of the posts on the board that nobody's method of typology is exactly like anyone else's. I'm certain you've observed this, and yet you still chase red herrings in the form of threads regarding MBTI's supposed "scientific validity"?
    How do you determine which parts work without any external validation? The purpose of it is for each person to redefine the system however it suits them? People can certainly do that, but my reservation with that kind of approach is that it doesn't necessarily exercise critical thinking. Not that people need to be critical thinkers, but it seems worth making distinctions about when critical thinking is not happening. Edit: It's difficult for me to see how the purely personal application of the system serves a purpose. How does it create a clearer picture of reality if it can't be measured to have external consistency. Isn't that how perceptions and thoughts are distorted? By internal systems that don't map well to reality?
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  5. #15
    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 proteanmix View Post
    Toonia began this thread as an attempt to find evidence in support of or against MBTI. You're turning this into any other thread about the validity of MBTI. Victor et al. starts threads about it's validity nearly every other week. Please take this elsewhere and let's have at least one place on the forum where those of us who want to see some evidence can use as a resource.
    What evidence? There can't be any hard evidence for a system which propounds no objective conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    That being said:



    Well you seem to take MBTI/Typology pretty seriously. How do you justify your use of it when it doesn't even hold true for MOST people? You can only type people who fall within it's nebulous dichotomies. Most casual users of MBTI have not been properly trained to ascertain a person's type. BTW, what does it mean to be trained to operate something? Why would you need training in something that does nothing? Why do you need to be a qualified professional to administer MBTI if it's not valid or at least thinks it is?
    Dude, seriously. It's not a question of "holding true" because it's all based on subjective categories. There is no standard for it to "hold true" to because there's no definitive standard for what each type is!

    It's all a bunch of conjecture based on the arbitrary decisions to make up common terminology to describe what we see other people doing. We start with the set "all possible behavior" and then categorize it into letter-named categories accordingly. What you STILL somehow don't understand is that this requires no external validation because it's not actually an external methodology. (Amusingly, you're displaying a lack of Ni here by not realizing that all the terminology and symbolism in the system is an arbitrarily defined function of perception, which cannot be externally verified in any objective manner.)

    Contrary to the implications of having a "test" for MBTI type, there's not really any way to actually test it. It's based entirely on popular opinion of how each type tends to behave. If someone doesn't behave in a way that I've chosen to categorize as ENFJ, then I don't put that person into my personal ENFJ category. The definitions of categories are loose, variable, and VERY dependent upon interpretation. I post on this forum about it largely to hear more interpretations from others and try to come to a consensus on my own personal beliefs regarding psychological typing and its uses.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    I think one of the reasons why I can't really get with what you say is because I'm the type of person to research and study things, believe it or not. I can't just believe something without seeing how it stands up against measurable criteria. I work in the mental health field with psychiatrists and psychologists and whenever MBTI is mentioned (and it's mentioned often!) a collective eyeroll ensues. It's pop psychology and nothing more.
    Oh I definitely believe it, and you've done a very nice job of demonstrating your proficiency with rote memorization of hard evidence. Congrats, that's half the battle.

    You'd get a very different reaction if you discussed it with philosophers instead of scientific professionals. Do you expect these people to care about a purely conjectural system of arbitrary behavioral categorization with no real scientific applications? Why should they in their line of work?

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    But fine let's go to the official MBTI website and see what it says it will do. Let the thing speak for itself.

    From the official publisher of the REAL MBTI https://www.cpp.com/en/index.aspx



    You can see more of what the official instruments say it does here: https://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.aspx

    MBTI says, (not simulatedworld says) that this is a scientifically-backed tool but science isn't backing it, science is saying that it's a bucket of steaming hot crap. So simulatedworld says it's not supposed to be measuring anything valid, but THE THING ITSELF says it is. Perhaps you should begin correspondence with CPP and expose them for what they are or enlighten them to their real purpose. Because evidently they say what they peddle is legit and if it's not then they're lying and misguiding consumers. If it is, it's up for grabs under scrutiny and it's not doing so well. Ever heard of snake oil?
    The funny part is that you're technically right; you're just wasting your time on a question that's been solved for ages. As with most of this, the problem is all in the way you look at it.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    I agree with you, but it says it is scientifically valid. See above.
    Yeah, and the Bible says the Earth is literally 6,000 years old. We'd better start writing letters to Reform Jewish leaders--I'm not sure anyone has told them yet!



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    I don't see this as being short-sighted. Short-sighted is that the MBTI is so unimportant that they don't even bother testing it. If you do a literature search on MBTI validity, a lot of research into it's validity has happened, which to me indicates that people DO wonder if it can do what it says it does and are testing it out to see if it's true. To me that indicates there is some possible usefulness of MBTI but it's not doing what it says it does.
    Who cares? Use the parts that work and throw out the ones that don't. You'll notice by reading some of the posts on the board that nobody's method of typology is exactly like anyone else's. I'm certain you've observed this, and yet you still chase red herrings in the form of threads regarding MBTI's supposed "scientific validity"?

    It's like writing threads to "debate" whether we should take "Intelligent Design" seriously in science class. If you haven't already figured it out and moved on, you're beyond hopeless.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    You're right about that, which is yet more proof that it's probably not worth the paper it's printed on.
    If by "it's probably not worth the paper it's printed on", you mean, "I'm interpreting it childishly," then sure, I'm on board.






    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Disagree. Career counseling is a valid field of study that is more rigorous than what MBTI could ever hope to be.
    lol. "A valid field of study!" I'm not even going to entertain the notion that there's anything objectively measurable about career counseling. That said, I think it's a great idea, and if a lot people feel like it helps them (which is the only thing the data regarding its "scientific accuracy" could be based on), then sure, go for it. Confidence is half the battle anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Agree with that, but you'll notice that career counseling goes into more depth with an individual than simply checking a few boxes on a test. Career counseling takes a more holistic approach.
    Uh huh, and so does the typology approach that anyone with half a brain on this site is obviously using.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    But for many people here it is the only thing they trust. Look at how many threads that pop up giving A/S/L/Type, "how do I do XXXX type to like me?" People are mentally lazy and think that they've figured out the whole of the person simply by knowing their type code. The proof is all around you on the forum are you looking at it?
    Again, why do I care how many people miss the real utility here?

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Simulated, when you make claims at least try to make them defensible, OK? If I'm going to stand out on a limb and make absurd claims I'm at least going to try to find some evidence to bake it up. Which is what toonia was doing when she opened up the thread. You and so many other people love MBTI to death because you can make all types of spurious claims and have zero evidence to back your it up. Then when someone hands you evidence to the contrary you fall back upon the old IT'S JUST THEORY! bag of nothing.
    You're such an S it's actually endearing at times. I appreciate that you're being sincere here, and it's not that you're actually wrong about MBTI not holding up to scientific scrutiny, just that that's essentially a non-issue because nobody with any real understanding of the inductive system we use here actually thinks it's science.

    Exactly what absurd claims am I making here?

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Unfortunately, many people here don't treat MBTI as just theory, some people here have a religious devotion to MBTI. They've latched onto it for whatever reasons they have and it's become overinflated and taken on proportions it should never have.
    Actually, most people just appropriate the usage of letter terminology to form their own proprietary systems--whatever works best for conceptualizing the framework of their own interpersonal relations. That's all this is really supposed to be, anyway--a particular way of looking at things.

    And frankly, the same is true of intelligent religious people. They don't take the literal details seriously so much as assimilate the root concepts and apply them to gain perspective and understanding regarding their own lives.

    If you sought to show fault in religious fundamentalism, it's already been done enough times.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #16
    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 toonia View Post
    Kiersey applied the system to external behaviors. It was Jung who approached it only in terms of internal processes.
    Yes, so Keirsey has his own arbitrary system of categorization of the behavior of others, just as each of us does. We all take some influence from various people in our approaches, and Keirsey has had a lot of that sort of influence. The truly ideal system is a little bit different for each person and the particular combination of personalities in his life, so we listen to the ideas of others and try to form a general idea of the approaches that will be most effective for us in our own lives. This is how a subjective knowledge base operates.

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    I'd like to read what philosophers have said about it. Do you know of any references? In some ways philosophy can be especially rigorous in its application of critical thought, so it would be useful to know how they approach a theory like this one.
    99% of philosophy involves inductive reasoning, which is what makes it primarily a subjective field. In the US they usually teach the strict deductive reasoning in Critical Thinking, the introductory philosophy course, because to actually get anywhere with philosophy you have to release deductive, hard-evidenced based reasoning and get a little more...how do you say...intuitive? When we move beyond the realm of measurable science, all we can do is speculate as to possible interpretations...we are no longer working with precise data. Learn to adapt to this difference or forget it.

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    In a purely social context like a forum it doesn't particularly matter what kinds of thinking skills are being exercised. In the career world, there is an issue worth addressing if an arbitrary system is influencing people's opportunities in employment. A forum like this one seems a reasonable enough place to explore the idea. Even if it is obvious that the system by its nature cannot be measured, it is not being applied as though it is the subjective tool that it is.
    I absolutely agree that MBTI "testing" should not help or hinder anyone's consideration for employment. Once hired, it might help us determine how best to motivate you to give your best performance, but it should NEVER be assumed that you will or won't be good at a certain job because of something as arbitrary as MBTI type.

    This is a total misapplication of the system--attempting to squeeze deductive uses out of inductive reasoning. No good at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    How do you determine which parts work without any external validation? The purpose of it is for each person to redefine the system however it suits them? People can certainly do that, but my reservation with that kind of approach is that it doesn't necessarily exercise critical thinking. Not that people need to be critical thinkers, but it seems worth making distinctions about when critical thinking is not happening.
    I would say it absolutely encourages critical thinking because it pushes us to consider the viewpoints, perspectives and values with which others are likely to approach our own interactions (and especially disagreements) with them.

    Many people assume that anyone who isn't proficient in their particular areas of strength is a moron/not worth listening to, that theirs is the only value system of any true value...by discussing these inherent assumptions in behavioral interaction we can learn to stretch our perspectives. Why have I chosen my value system over any other? What criteria can be used to evaluate the very values I use to evaluate everything else? (HINT: This is called Ni.)

    That is the sole point of philosophy. How do you put a numeric grade on a philosophy paper? Hard to say--it's all a matter of induction and general consensus. But the ideas are out there, even though they can't be measured or externally verified.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #17
    Senior Member stigmatica's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Meh... I draw my own conclusions based on personal observations. Screw the Scientific Foundation of Party-poopers.

    • Does it make for accurate stereotyping? Hell no.
    • Does it create a borg like atmosphere sometimes, due to natural conformity to expected behavior? Yes
    • Does it open up discussions and understanding of people that are fundamentally different from yourself? Hell yes
    • Should it be used as a tool for guidance counselors? Not in general, only the intelligent ones who are able to use it as a fuzzy pointer, rather than a spreadsheet driven, set in stone manual.
    • Should it be used for job interviews, etc? Hell no!
    • Is it fun? Hell yes!

  8. #18
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    In some ways this is some of the most useful insight that MBTI reveals about human psychology. I have a tendency to forget how intensely some people internalize these ideas. I've wondered if the disconnectedness of modern society leaves people more vulnerable to latch onto somewhat arbitrary systems that provide a sense of identity and community.
    Very possibly.

    Were I to guess at the precise origin of 'fanboyism', (slang for an individual profoundly invested in a particular philosophy or intimate way of thinking, insofar that it corrupts his natural ability to creatively produce outside of group identification), I'd say the unhealthy desire for external validation likely originates as a logical response to patterned social rejection.

    The individual envelopes himself in a semi-recognizable (and therefore important) subculture, all the while endeavoring to equip his newfound identity with clique phrasings/methods of behavior popularized by his group of choice, further dividing him from his history of social insecurity.

    In extreme cases, it seems as if certain of these organizations are established as a bulwark to encourage fragile likemindedness (a form intellectual domestication, perhaps) while establishing a 'pocket' reality wherein the group member artificially enhances his self-worth as an extension of his group identification.

    Straight Edge; PETA; heck, even the Salvation Army could probably quality as an organized, philosophical challenge to otherwise 'typical' communal conduct.

  9. #19
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I would say it absolutely encourages critical thinking because it pushes us to consider the viewpoints, perspectives and values with which others are likely to approach our own interactions (and especially disagreements) with them.

    Many people assume that anyone who isn't proficient in their particular areas of strength is a moron/not worth listening to, that theirs is the only value system of any true value...by discussing these inherent assumptions in behavioral interaction we can learn to stretch our perspectives. Why have I chosen my value system over any other? What criteria can be used to evaluate the very values I use to evaluate everything else? (HINT: This is called Ni.)
    Different viewpoints are important. There is potential problem in dismissing external validity in a system that has a proposed set of terms. If these are personally redefined to a significant extent without an external reference point to get people on the same page, then the likelihood of it increasing miscommunication is significant. Using the same words with different definitions is a much bigger problem than encountering someone with a different set of terms. Of course on one level that is the nature of words, to have different meanings in the mind of each person, but to use a system in which that is encouraged and exaggerated seems like setting people up for confusion.

    Like when you called proteanmix, "such an S". That statement has meaning for you that is probably completely different from the meaning in my mind. If MBTI has no external validity, if we can't point to its definitions as having consistent meaning in its application, then what does such a statement communicate? Speaking different languages that deliberately use the same words seems potentially problematic to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That is the sole point of philosophy. How do you put a numeric grade on a philosophy paper? Hard to say--it's all a matter of induction and general consensus. But the ideas are out there, even though they can't be measured or externally verified.
    My academic area is in the arts. It is an endeavor that attempts to communicate an internal experience using a symbolic language that means something different to each person. I understand how subjective systems work. The thing is that because the symbols are approximate, it does not allow me to draw hard conclusions outside myself or even within myself. Overlaying a system of hard labels on a work of art to nail down the fuzzy aspects of meaning would be incompatible with the system and its meaning would break down.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  10. #20
    Senior Member stigmatica's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    Different viewpoints are important. There is potential problem in dismissing external validity in a system that has a proposed set of terms. If these are personally redefined to a significant extent without an external reference point to get people on the same page, then the likelihood of it increasing miscommunication is significant. Using the same words with different definitions is a much bigger problem than encountering someone with a different set of terms. Of course on one level that is the nature of words, to have different meanings in the mind of each person, but to use a system in which that is encouraged and exaggerated seems like setting people up for confusion.

    Like when you called proteanmix, "such an S". That statement has meaning for you that is probably completely different from the meaning in my mind. If MBTI has no external validity, if we can't point to its definitions as having consistent meaning in its application, then what does such a statement communicate? Speaking different languages that deliberately use the same words seems potentially problematic to me.

    My academic area is in the arts. It is an endeavor that attempts to communicate an internal experience using a symbolic language that means something different to each person. I understand how subjective systems work. The thing is that because the symbols are approximate, it does not allow me to draw hard conclusions outside myself or even within myself. Overlaying a system of hard labels on a work of art to nail down the fuzzy aspects of meaning would be incompatible with the system and its meaning would break down.
    My translation: In anything as subjective as MBTI, concrete conclusions can never be made, and people are prone to mis-communicate their ideas due to different perceptions of the same data? - true

    But it's still fun and useful, I say.

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts On the Validity of MBTI
    By Savage Idealist in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 06:41 PM
  2. Does Economy Measure the Standard of Living?
    By wildcat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-13-2009, 06:55 PM
  3. [MBTItm] An Insight of Mine into the Mechanics of MBTI (feedback is welcome)
    By NashK in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 09:57 PM
  4. [MBTItm] An Insight of Mine into the Mechanics of MBTI (feedback welcome)
    By NashK in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-29-2008, 04:02 PM

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