User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 80

  1. #11
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbw View Post
    I understand what you mean by sorting into categories. We have 4 dichotomies so we have 16 categories, that's all good.

    But who decided that the secondary function needs to have the opposite E/I as the primary function? That sounds totally made up to me... much like "follow this line on the enneagram to see which type you turn into when Mars aligns with Jupiter"...
    Personally, I can't make heads or tails out of the enneagram system. But MBTI seems acceptable to me. Both in theory as well in practice. At least on a recognizable level with which I feel comfortable 'working' with.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  2. #12
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    I've heard it explained as a "model" for behavior. Like any (even scientific) model it will not be exact but it is a good (and evolving) approximation.

    No one can model water coming out of a faucet perfectly, does that make the models we have useless?

  3. #13
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    it hasn't been validated as such, according to wiki, therfore it can't be called a science, but then there are plenty of scientists that say psycology isn't a science either....

    That said I'm not a huge beleiver in science... which is massively limited to things that can be measured.

    If we exsisted within sciences strcutural approach there would be no progression... Great advancements are mainly made through someone choosing to look at something differently, oten it can't be measured....

    Thoughts can not be measured it doens't mean they don't exsist....

    MBTI - is a central tendancy - and usful, but it's not science. That said, it's not bullshit.... it can be helpful to assist people to understand likely reponces and to nail down that people are different and likely to behave in a specific way - therfore you need to adapt to them

  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Are you implying there's a gray area between science and bullshit? *struggling to wrap mind around new concept*

  5. #15
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    but then there are plenty of scientists that say psycology isn't a science either....
    Personally I don't understand the arguement why psychology has to be science in order for it to 'work'.

    Psychology in essence is based on scientific principles. However, practical application of psychology is not science. Why? Brains aren't a metric length someone can put a ruler against and measure. There are too many uncertainties to call any therapy science. Still, due to categorization, recognition of common patterns and ofcourse also scientific facts such as blood pressure and such. Are all considered in one heap and out of it comes therapies, medication and courses of action that most likely prove effective. Where there was no treatment before. Is psychology science? Parts of it, sure, and psychology aims to be as close to science as possible which is ofcourse good. But in general, it is not pure science. That doesn't mean it isn't useful however.

    If someone is crying and you don't know why or what caused it. Should you just ignore it because you don't know the science behind it? (= Psychology is bogus, it's not science!)
    Or should you act on what you do know, that crying is most often a result from something painful happening and inquire why the person cries, how you may assist, if there's hurt where it hurts and thus narrow down the cause and help find a solution and aid in the persons distress or pain? (= Psychology may not be science, but it sure is helpful.)


    Quote Originally Posted by dbw View Post
    Are you implying there's a gray area between science and bullshit? *struggling to wrap mind around new concept*
    Yes, shortly put.

    One end of the spectrum there is science that we aquired. On the other end of the spectrum is bullshit. Inbetween is tons and tons of potential science as well as bullshit that is beyond our comprehension, awaiting our discovery.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  6. #16
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    I don't think MBTI does a good job at explaining anything. It's only descriptive. It just gives a set of traits a single name.

  7. #17
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Hey Fluffy

    I'm not big fan of science's dismissiveness, I agree there are many things that can't be proven scientifically, but are still useful/valid.

    Many psycology experiments are conducted with piss poor sample sizes which pretend to be scientific but are SO not... but lets not get too geek

    I agree useful the subject is, it doens't need to be scientifically measurable to be useful... hauman brain/behaviour is complex and difficult to measure...

  8. #18
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    MBTI gives "what someone does and another one doesnt understand" a more friendly face and graspable nature. The ideas about Fi and Fe, I find highly helpful with some people, aswell as the ideas about S and N.

    Wouldnt it be for the descriptions mbti gave in that category, I'ld still have no real clue what is it exactly that is different between humans, besides hunches and an introverted world of experience resulting from dealing with humans.

    If I think mbti to be the final wisdom ? No. But it gave direction to me
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    52

    Default

    MBTI gives us "handles" on people. Where before we couldn't particularly describe people we now have a new vocabulary that not only allows us to describe people better but to understand people better. MBTI is a paradigm. I wouldn't even attempt to compare it to science really. It's much more like a language; somebody just made up stuff and other people adopted the made up stuff out of practicality. As there is no scientific nature to words, no explanation as to why the word "cat" describes the idea of a "cat", there is no scientific nature to the MBTI. (My thoughts are sort of loose here, but I think my point is made.)

  10. #20
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    Personally I don't understand the arguement why psychology has to be science in order for it to 'work'.

    Psychology in essence is based on scientific principles. However, practical application of psychology is not science. Why? Brains aren't a metric length someone can put a ruler against and measure. There are too many uncertainties to call any therapy science. Still, due to categorization, recognition of common patterns and ofcourse also scientific facts such as blood pressure and such. Are all considered in one heap and out of it comes therapies, medication and courses of action that most likely prove effective. Where there was no treatment before. Is psychology science? Parts of it, sure, and psychology aims to be as close to science as possible which is ofcourse good. But in general, it is not pure science. That doesn't mean it isn't useful however.
    Empirical science demands predictive, reproducible theories. Psychology is much more of a descriptive science, which seeks to describe things as they appear to be. MBTI falls into the second category.

    While the latter two are scientific, in that they seek to describe trends based on observation, they aren't science, due to the lack of theoretical prediction (trends aren't predictive, they're merely descriptive of past events) and reproducibility (you can't say an ENFP will react this way, every time stimulus X is applied).

Similar Threads

  1. Is MBTI Used Or Prevalent At Your Place Of Work?
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-16-2010, 10:05 AM
  2. MBTI: Descriptive or Predictive?
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 08:59 AM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 11:14 AM
  4. it's the MBTI hot-or-not
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2008, 01:56 PM
  5. MBTI Raps (or Poems)
    By meanlittlechimp in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 10:14 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