User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 45

  1. #21
    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
    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.
    I can see the problem in the terminology, sure, but it's *just* like music critique. I might think that a group is "so post-hardcore" and some other musical snob might insist that they're obviously post-punk progressive rock, etc. etc.

    So yes there are some communication problems, but the external frame of reference can be there (such as this forum) without actually being objectively verifiable. Just as with art, there is only a general consensus by people who have studied it as to what is meaningful art and what is not, just as our conceptions of typology vary from person to person.

    We have discussions on forums like this for that very reason--the more we mix and match our varying definitions, the more flexibility we may use in describing the phenomena we observe.

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    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.
    She might not really be an S type, but by insisting that concrete and measurable data is needed in order for any utility to be had, she was demonstrating an S attitude by insisting on a higher degree of specificity than such an N system can offer.

    There are different schools of typology just as there are different schools of art critique. Even highly informed so-called "authorities" on the topic disagree sometimes, so what on Earth are we doing looking for scientific proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    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.
    It's not supposed to let you draw hard conclusions about how to handle any particular situation. It only gives suggestions as to how, based on previous observations, this situation might be handled more effectively than last time.

    The fact that it's wrong in certain particular cases really bugs the Sensing perspective, because they see it as a specific critique repeated again for each and every individual member of the group.

    You won't gain any value from something like this until you learn to think of the generalized statements as relative relationships instead of precise data.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #22
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I can see the problem in the terminology, sure, but it's *just* like music critique. I might think that a group is "so post-hardcore" and some other musical snob might insist that they're obviously post-punk progressive rock, etc. etc.
    Actually that is an example of applying external labels and serves a purpose commercially. That wasn't the kind of issue I was referring to in terms of labels diminishing art. That is unrelated to the symbolic language of the music itself. My meaning was how a shift to a parallel minor, or an extended melodic note, a combining of a penetrating timbre with a diffuse timbre creates a powerful effect that resists the labeling as to why. I was referring to the character and meaning in the actual work, not how it fits into a commercial label category.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So yes there are some communication problems, but the external frame of reference can be there (such as this forum) without actually being objectively verifiable. Just as with art, there is only a general consensus by people who have studied it as to what is meaningful art and what is not, just as our conceptions of typology vary from person to person.

    We have discussions on forums like this for that very reason--the more we mix and match our varying definitions, the more flexibility we may use in describing the phenomena we observe.
    How is the system more useful than astrology? Is its usefulness entirely determined by its application? I suppose a person could find a way to apply astrology in a useful manner if it helps to organize their thoughts. I have overall enjoyed MBTI and am trying to understand its function. I might continue to think in terms of MBTI, but it is really indulging the subjective side in a way I don't often do.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    There are different schools of typology just as there are different schools of art critique. Even highly informed so-called "authorities" on the topic disagree sometimes, so what on Earth are we doing looking for scientific proof?
    There are some weak parallels between the two, but there are fundamental differences. The artistic critique is a study of culture and symbols. It would be more directly comparable to linguistic study. There can be a question of validity even without hard scientific proof. There are different levels of validity or how could anyone make sense of anything that isn't hard science? Subjective systems have varying degrees of accurately mapping to reality. They are approximate by nature as you say, but they should then approximately map to reality. The question is whether or not MBTI serves as a reasonable approximation. Consistency on self-reporting tests is not a particularly rigorous example of scientific proof. This isn't even being put through brain imaging or any rigorous kind of testing. The tests it is failing make allowances for the subjective nature of the system. Introversion and Extroversion are subjective concepts and they had validity. What is different about those qualities? What is more objective about E/I that allows these to demonstrate validity when the rest of the parameters didn't?
    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.

  3. #23
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Measuring the validity of what, exactly? That there are 16 types of personality and everyone is fitted with one or another of them? Or that there's a test instrument that'll do the fitting for you?

    It's a descriptive model. People are supposed to verify it by introspection. How scientific is introspection?

  4. #24
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Went to lunch and look what sprouted while I was gone!

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    What evidence? There can't be any hard evidence for a system which propounds no objective conclusions.

    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!
    OK, so if there is no definitive standard for what a type is, how are you even typing people in the first place? What are you doing? It's basically cat paintings that people are trying to glean interpretive value from. Is the value there? Possibly. I'm not arguing if it has intrinsic value or not. I've personally found value in MBTI but not the type people are going on and on about. The problem is people passing off the painting done by a tabby as a Rembrandt. This is why MBTI requires professionals to administer the exams and interpret results, because the results can vary widely. And if there is no definitive type, then THE ONLY thing MBTI is useful for is a tool for self-awareness and NOTHING MORE. The system as it's used casually is essentially as holey as swiss cheese and full of mold.

    The problem is the system does propound objective conclusions, it does say that it's valid. It's false advertisement and I'm all about truth in advertisement. And you act like there is no philosophical study of personality when there is. Even those who study personality philosophically don't even mention MBTI, Jung gets mentioned but not his psychological types. Talk about short-sighted: at least science says hey this might be valid, let's see if it is. Philosophers (aside from you and SolitaryWalker) don't even give it the time of day! Very simple internet searches will show this. Ever heard of theory of the mind or philosophy of the mind? What do you think that is?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So yes there are some communication problems, but the external frame of reference can be there (such as this forum) without actually being objectively verifiable. Just as with art, there is only a general consensus by people who have studied it as to what is meaningful art and what is not, just as our conceptions of typology vary from person to person.
    Or much like porn vs. erotica vs. sensual art, I know it when I see it. But I ask, who gets to decide what is meaningful external criteria when it comes to MBTI? A forum full of casual users? Those professionally trained in it's usage? Philosophers? Psychologists and psychiatrists? There can never be a governing body when it comes to MBTI and typology or maybe those in these communities will form some sort of consortium but I doubt that will happen. Just as you've pointed out over and over it's too subjective for there to be any consensus. And if there is no consensual reality as to what a "type" is then that type does not exist. Just like language, we all must agree that certain words have certain meanings in order to communicate with each other. If ENFJ means different things to different people with no standard application then is there really a such thing as an ENFJ?

    We have discussions on forums like this for that very reason--the more we mix and match our varying definitions, the more flexibility we may use in describing the phenomena we observe.
    Yeah, and you'll flex to it's proper place next to Phrenology!

    She might not really be an S type, but by insisting that concrete and measurable data is needed in order for any utility to be had, she was demonstrating an S attitude by insisting on a higher degree of specificity than such an N system can offer.
    I know all those links to data is blowing your N mind right now. I have this horrible habit of trying to make my positions defensible with evidence and trying to make informed decisions about life stuff. I'll try to do less of that when debating with you. I've done it before and it's been disastrous.

    And just to clarify that was not what I was insisting. I'm still at this forum about MBTI and typology for some strange reason. If I thought it was complete bunk I'd be doing some other ESxx activity like body shots. Le sigh, that sounds like so much fun right now...

    There are different schools of typology just as there are different schools of art critique.
    You are correct! *INTUITIVE OVERLOAD* More links!

    The New York Center for Jungian Studies presents programs, seminars and study tours in extraordinary settings related to the psychology and ideas of Carl Jung
    The C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco :: Jungian Therapy, Jung Training & Education, Jungian Internships, Jung Classes, Lectures & Seminars in the San Francisco Bay Area
    IAJS - The International Association for Jungian Studies

    And those are great websites to get different POVs about typology from my personal collection. I never disagreed with you about keeping MBTI/typology where it belongs, which is strictly in theory. It's absolutely shitty when people try to put into practice because most people don't know what the eff they're doing with it. Training, my dear! I personally love it as theory. I get to make all sorts of conclusions and psychoanalyses about people and have no one to dissuade me of my notions!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Measuring the validity of what, exactly? That there are 16 types of personality and everyone is fitted with one or another of them? Or that there's a test instrument that'll do the fitting for you?

    It's a descriptive model. People are supposed to verify it by introspection. How scientific is introspection?
    Well that's what it says doesn't it? That basically the 7 billion people on this planet can be sorted and slotted into 16 general personality types. When you put it this way doesn't it sound absurd? And what if the person introspects and come up with a different type than what someone comes up with? The final answer should lie with the person. But I continually see people asking "What's such and such's type" with no input from the person involved and in some cases the person takes the "test" people will say 'No I think they took the test wrong, they're really this' So then the person's typological right to choose is stolen from them.

    My inferior Ti is slumping over the chair. Over and out.
    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

  5. #25
    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
    Actually that is an example of applying external labels and serves a purpose commercially. That wasn't the kind of issue I was referring to in terms of labels diminishing art. That is unrelated to the symbolic language of the music itself. My meaning was how a shift to a parallel minor, or an extended melodic note, a combining of a penetrating timbre with a diffuse timbre creates a powerful effect that resists the labeling as to why. I was referring to the character and meaning in the actual work, not how it fits into a commercial label category.
    It does serve a purpose commercially, but if you intend to imply that the only reason genre labels exist in art is to sell it, I disagree. Analysis of art practically begs it to be divided into categories in order to make meaningful contextual comparisons.

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    How is the system more useful than astrology? Is its usefulness entirely determined by its application? I suppose a person could find a way to apply astrology in a useful manner if it helps to organize their thoughts. I have overall enjoyed MBTI and am trying to understand its function. I might continue to think in terms of MBTI, but it is really indulging the subjective side in a way I don't often do.
    Because astrology pre-defines its behavioral predictions according to a meaningless demographic with no correlation to behavior (date of birth.) We actually CAN judge the proposition that there is any significant behavioral correlation between date of birth and astrological predictions, so this claim can be shown to be false.

    But that said, you're absolutely right that someone could take that system's terminology and redefine it in a way that provides useful perspective. If anybody's doing that, more power to them--I tend to think MBTI provides a more conceptually interrelated model in terms of each letter and letter combination showing distinct behavioral patterns that can be compared and contrasted with others.

    But if you want to label the people I call ESFJs as "Aquarius with Taurus rising" or whatever, and you define those terms in that way and get a bunch of other people using a similar language, then sure it could be useful. But no such community seems to exist at the moment--I suspect this is because MBTI's lettering system is far more useful than Myers and Briggs even realized. Their decision to try and pass it off as science was a mistake, when it has clear organizational value even without being scientific.

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    There are some weak parallels between the two, but there are fundamental differences. The artistic critique is a study of culture and symbols. It would be more directly comparable to linguistic study. There can be a question of validity even without hard scientific proof. There are different levels of validity or how could anyone make sense of anything that isn't hard science? Subjective systems have varying degrees of accurately mapping to reality. They are approximate by nature as you say, but they should then approximately map to reality. The question is whether or not MBTI serves as a reasonable approximation. Consistency on self-reporting tests is not a particularly rigorous example of scientific proof. This isn't even being put through brain imaging or any rigorous kind of testing. The tests it is failing make allowances for the subjective nature of the system. Introversion and Extroversion are subjective concepts and they had validity. What is different about those qualities? What is more objective about E/I that allows these to demonstrate validity when the rest of the parameters didn't?
    Well, we define MBTI letters according to what we observe to be most similar to reality. So by definition, they DO approximately map to reality, or you've defined them poorly. See how this is totally dependent upon the subject and useful primarily for introspection? Kalach has the right idea.

    Everyone has his own typology system. Most people just use words like "asshole" or "drama queen" or other exaggerated/poorly designed labels. I and some others prefer to use MBTI's lettering system for our own purposes of organizing data for purposes of introspection. This cannot be tested for validity...

    Because the "validity" you're testing is only in terms of the "MBTI test", which no one really considers to be an objective standard. The "test" is the only measurable or quantifiable thing about the whole system, and it doesn't return the same results consistently.

    But that doesn't mean the conceptual framework is flawed--just that the testing mechanism is poor! Something this subjective really can't be accurately measured or tested. My guess would be that introversion/extroversion is by far the easiest personality dimension to explain, so the so-called "test" probably gets pretty consistent results on that because it's easy to understand, so people don't misinterpret/inaccurately describe their own behavior due to misunderstanding on that dimension too often.

    But again, showing that the testing mechanism is poor doesn't ruin the entire conceptual framework...don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #26
    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
    Went to lunch and look what sprouted while I was gone!



    OK, so if there is no definitive standard for what a type is, how are you even typing people in the first place? What are you doing? It's basically cat paintings that people are trying to glean interpretive value from. Is the value there? Possibly. I'm not arguing if it has intrinsic value or not. I've personally found value in MBTI but not the type people are going on and on about. The problem is people passing off the painting done by a tabby as a Rembrandt. This is why MBTI requires professionals to administer the exams and interpret results, because the results can vary widely. And if there is no definitive type, then THE ONLY thing MBTI is useful for is a tool for self-awareness and NOTHING MORE. The system as it's used casually is essentially as holey as swiss cheese and full of mold.
    It's funny how each of us acknowledges the correctness of the other's reasoning yet declares the resultant conclusion useless. This is actually a pretty amusing representation of N vs. S, each trying to understand the other in its own terms.

    In any event, it's not really my problem if you're unable to find the value in any system without concretely defined categories. The fact that you can't conceptualize what's so useful about systems of self awareness without verifiable data is telling. I don't know what your purported type is, but based on the information I have thus far, I'm going to wager a guess at ESFJ.

    This will never really be proven or disproven; in fact, it will change over time as my personal understanding of my own definition of the ESFJ archetype changes, and more as I continue to gain information on you. This is how inductive understanding works.

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    The problem is the system does propound objective conclusions, it does say that it's valid. It's false advertisement and I'm all about truth in advertisement. And you act like there is no philosophical study of personality when there is. Even those who study personality philosophically don't even mention MBTI, Jung gets mentioned but not his psychological types. Talk about short-sighted: at least science says hey this might be valid, let's see if it is. Philosophers (aside from you and SolitaryWalker) don't even give it the time of day! Very simple internet searches will show this. Ever heard of theory of the mind or philosophy of the mind? What do you think that is?
    lol "LOOK AT ALL MY EXTERNALLY MEASURABLE PROOF THAT YOUR SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS IS WRONG"

    Next, please.

    Nobody using MBTI for our purposes on this forum actually thinks it holds up to scientific scrutiny, and I've admitted that about 75,000 times. What more do you want on this front, a medal? YOU WON THIS POINT. CONGRATS.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Or much like porn vs. erotica vs. sensual art, I know it when I see it. But I ask, who gets to decide what is meaningful external criteria when it comes to MBTI? A forum full of casual users? Those professionally trained in it's usage? Philosophers? Psychologists and psychiatrists? There can never be a governing body when it comes to MBTI and typology or maybe those in these communities will form some sort of consortium but I doubt that will happen. Just as you've pointed out over and over it's too subjective for there to be any consensus. And if there is no consensual reality as to what a "type" is then that type does not exist. Just like language, we all must agree that certain words have certain meanings in order to communicate with each other. If ENFJ means different things to different people with no standard application then is there really a such thing as an ENFJ?
    Nope, there's no governing body and that's the point. There's no governing body among philosophers either. You still don't seem to understand the basic concept of subjectivity--you keep looking for external validation in terms of appeals to authority. "Hey these people are really smart so they have to be right!"

    I've had this form of MBTI taught in college courses, so there's certainly some degree of disagreement in academia about whether it's perceptually useful. Psychology as a field contains both objective and subjective types of thinking, both deduction and induction. Thus far you've only shown ability to use the former.

    And no, in an objective, "real" sense that can be directly experienced, there is no such thing as an ENFJ. That's absolutely true. If this leads you to the conclusion that conceptualizing certain people as ENFJs is absolutely useless, then there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Yeah, and you'll flex to it's proper place next to Phrenology!
    Aww, no, that's a totally irrelevant comparison. Great album though.


    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    I know all those links to data is blowing your N mind right now. I have this horrible habit of trying to make my positions defensible with evidence and trying to make informed decisions about life stuff. I'll try to do less of that when debating with you. I've done it before and it's been disastrous.

    And just to clarify that was not what I was insisting. I'm still at this forum about MBTI and typology for some strange reason. If I thought it was complete bunk I'd be doing some other ESxx activity like body shots. Le sigh, that sounds like so much fun right now...
    Wow, data, cool. Doesn't do a whole lot without context. Your fundamental mistake is contextual--don't place MBTI letters in a context where they need scientific accuracy and you won't have a problem. This must be harder than I thought.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    You are correct! *INTUITIVE OVERLOAD* More links!

    The New York Center for Jungian Studies presents programs, seminars and study tours in extraordinary settings related to the psychology and ideas of Carl Jung
    The C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco :: Jungian Therapy, Jung Training & Education, Jungian Internships, Jung Classes, Lectures & Seminars in the San Francisco Bay Area
    IAJS - The International Association for Jungian Studies

    And those are great websites to get different POVs about typology from my personal collection. I never disagreed with you about keeping MBTI/typology where it belongs, which is strictly in theory. It's absolutely shitty when people try to put into practice because most people don't know what the eff they're doing with it. Training, my dear! I personally love it as theory. I get to make all sorts of conclusions and psychoanalyses about people and have no one to dissuade me of my notions!
    Okay...so what exactly is the problem then? I don't propose that we apply MBTI to any objective standards like employment decisions, either. I don't really propose that we base any sort of objective evaluations on it because that's not what it does.

    Discussing and reading about it is the only "training" you need. I've read about other typology systems too and I've found that for me personally, organizing my information by this particular arbitrary system provides the most utility.



    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Well that's what it says doesn't it? That basically the 7 billion people on this planet can be sorted and slotted into 16 general personality types. When you put it this way doesn't it sound absurd? And what if the person introspects and come up with a different type than what someone comes up with? The final answer should lie with the person. But I continually see people asking "What's such and such's type" with no input from the person involved and in some cases the person takes the "test" people will say 'No I think they took the test wrong, they're really this' So then the person's typological right to choose is stolen from them.

    My inferior Ti is slumping over the chair. Over and out.
    No, it doesn't say that. That's yet another S misinterpretation of what it says. (Hint: Don't interpret generalized statements as specific criticisms of every member of a group. Remember, I only know that the notes I'm hearing a major 3rd apart, but I don't actually know what notes they are...only the comparative relationship between them.) It just says that people I've arbitrarily grouped into category x seem more likely to exhibit behavior y than individuals I've arbitrarily grouped into category z. It's a closed system with all of the categories chosen intuitively; there's nothing to verify it against.

    But you still don't seem to grasp the relevance of the idea that the types are arbitrarily made up. If I'm inventing the system, I can divide 7 billion people into any number of categories I want, because I'm making up all the parameters.

    I could put them all into one category--carbon-based life forms. And I could decide arbitrarily that all carbon-based life forms fall into category 7JM4.

    Prove that all carbon-based life forms exhibit characteristics associated with category 7JM4? Why is there any reason to do that when I made up category 7JM4 and defined all of its properties myself?

    I can speak to others about what they choose to refer to as 7JM4, and at the end of the day none of us is objectively right because we're not working with measurable data. If I want to communicate my observations more meaningfully with others, I can learn to do this by interacting with them and agreeing upon certain standards of interpretation by which we will refer to certain concepts in the future...all arbitrarily.

    If that seems stupid and totally inapplicable to you, you don't understand the value of intuitive perspective.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #27
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    LOL, your last resort was to call me a Sensor.

    Oh and this phrenology not this phrenology.
    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

  8. #28
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Re: rep.

    You took me literally AGAIN?

    Obviously you weren't referring to the Roots album. That's what Ne does; it connects unrelated things, see? It was an aside, a joke, a bit of humor to lighten the mood, because it has the same name as the pseudo-science. Get it?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #29
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    What exactly is being demanded from MBTI in terms of "validity"? Is it a higher rate of "accuracy" than the reported 65-70%? Is the NEO-PI's superiority based on a higher % rate of "accuracy"?

    I wonder how the Cognitive Process test would fare, since it is based on the processes and not dichotomies (the original one; not the tandem test, which seems very inaccurate). I would think that should really be the MBTI's test. The Singer-Loomis sounds good too, and is also based on the processes. Wonder how that one would do.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  10. #30
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    proto. honestly.

    Phrenology is clearly unrelated because, like astrology, it claims a testable connection between skull shape and personality.

    For the 78th time the form of typology used prominently here is neither objective nor falsifiable. I'm out of ways to say this.

    If you don't get it then you don't, and we should move on.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

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