User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 80

  1. #51
    Senior Member MrRandom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    151

    Default

    I've been extremely interested in MBTI for a long time. My interest in it has been based on self-validation for the most part. It provided understanding, even deep insight, for an odd-one-out like me.

    Not long ago I read Lenore Thomson's book about MBTI/typology and I was extremely excited about it. After I had read it, I felt kind of empty... like the whole subject had lost its meaning to me. I suddenly felt that MBTI is worth nothing.

    I suppose that feeling came from the fact that I could identify with every type description in it. It didn't feel like 16 distinct boxes anymore, which plays key role in its usage as a tool. I dunno. Nothing was clear anymore, although it was supposed to be even clearer after such focused literature.

    I'm still interested in MBTI. Just not as much. It's difficult to let go of it. I'd still like to know the type of any new friends I make... the urge to test them is strong... but all in all, I've lost a lot of respect for MBTI.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    I believe that cognitive functions are broad terms that capture something within the psyche so I don't think it's just all fake confirmation bias. If it were, then technically I should identify with all functions but I don't. There's definitely a correlation, and if that correlation exists then I think it's a theory that has some credibility.

    The only reasons psychology departments never touch MBTI is because of the heavy focus on empirical studies only. Just like how psychology doesn't dabble with general philosophical ideas on the mind, virtually no focus on the idea of visual images or that dreams exist. All that doesn't indicate that MBTI is bogus, otherwise you could claim that dreaming is bogus.

  3. #53
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Why do you people still insist on making threads like this?

    Honestly, this has been settled like 600 times.

    The fact that you expect a binary answer ("TOTAL REAL SCIENCE!" OR "100% BULLSHIT!") probably indicates that you aren't considering the issue in the right context to make it meaningful.

    But I guess I'll explain one more time...

    Typology is not scientific and doesn't purport to be; it's not a fundamentally testable hypothesis because it's based on arbitrarily made up categorizations and never actually makes any quantifiable or testable claims.

    The "MBTI test" is garbage because it depends on self-report; that does not, however, invalidate the use of psychological archetypes as an exercise in expanding one's perspectives (which is the whole point--not to create a precise scientific mold that can be empirically predicted.)

    It's only "bullshit" insofar as philosophy, art, literature, music, and a host of other topics are bullshit because none of them can be quantified, measured or empirically verified.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kai
    The only reasons psychology departments never touch MBTI is because of the heavy focus on empirical studies only. Just like how psychology doesn't dabble with general philosophical ideas on the mind, virtually no focus on the idea of visual images or that dreams exist. All that doesn't indicate that MBTI is bogus, otherwise you could claim that dreaming is bogus.
    Actually, I was taught MBTI in college in Intro to Psych, but they stressed that it's unscientific and merely a thought exercise.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #54
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why do you people still insist on making threads like this?

    Honestly, this has been settled like 600 times.

    The fact that you expect a binary answer ("TOTAL REAL SCIENCE!" OR "100% BULLSHIT!") probably indicates that you aren't considering the issue in the right context to make it meaningful.

    But I guess I'll explain one more time...

    Typology is not scientific and doesn't purport to be; it's not a fundamentally testable hypothesis because it's based on arbitrarily made up categorizations and never actually makes any quantifiable or testable claims.

    The "MBTI test" is garbage because it depends on self-report; that does not, however, invalidate the use of psychological archetypes as an exercise in expanding one's perspectives (which is the whole point--not to create a precise scientific mold that can be empirically predicted.)

    It's only "bullshit" insofar as philosophy, art, literature, music, and a host of other topics are bullshit because none of them can be quantified, measured or empirically verified.
    What do you think when people type with high accuracy in that case?
    Why is it that self reporting leads to it being garbage? Little faith on peoples introspection skills or something else? =/

    Otherwise I agree with the other comments about the fuzziness.

  5. #55
    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 Kai View Post
    What do you think when people type with high accuracy in that case?
    Why is it that self reporting leads to it being garbage? Little faith on peoples introspection skills or something else? =/

    Otherwise I agree with the other comments about the fuzziness.
    Because people have varying levels of ability to self-report honestly.

    If you can self-report honestly, such tests will yield reasonably accurate results.

    Problem, though: How do we know who's capable of honest self-report and who isn't?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #56
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Because people have varying levels of ability to self-report honestly.

    If you can self-report honestly, such tests will yield reasonably accurate results.

    Problem, though: How do we know who's capable of honest self-report and who isn't?
    That's certainly something I'm not going to argue with. It's definitely something that a person can improve on though. Guess that's a problem that exists in all personality theories in which case I always ask this question. Why the hell is Big 5 not seen as garbage?*

    *I'm talking to myself at this stage. I realise that it only focuses on descriptions of surface behaviour, rather than what's internal but still it has the whole self-reporting problem.

  7. #57
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    For clarifications...

    The difference between MBTI and Big5

    Big5
    Proven to exist intrinsically in people across culture, age, gender
    Vigorous scientific experimentation consistently identify these categories in traits

    MBTI
    No proof for intrinsic existence of personality types in people. Appears to be arbitrary labels used to categorize people
    Vigorous scientific experimentation has consistently FAILED to disprove null hypothesis that MBTI types are made-up.
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  8. #58
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It's only "bullshit" insofar as philosophy, art, literature, music, and a host of other topics are bullshit because none of them can be quantified, measured or empirically verified.
    Verified, measured & quantified by whom? When do you measure them?

    Ooo, just realised... I have no idea what height you are... ergo you don't exist... I'm replying to a non existent entity... Eeek!!! I'm running the risk of endangering my existence!!!
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #59
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Ok, thanks for the responses.

    The MBTI types are not bullshit. If you measure your personality along four axes, you can use those four attributes to describe your personality in broad strokes. Clearly this works to some extent... for instance, the description of an INTP fits me (perfectly), while the description of an ESFJ does not (to say the least). In this respect MBTI is just like the more scientifically accepted Big 5, and the four MBTI axes even correspond nicely to four of the Big 5 axes.

    The part that's bullshit is the cognitive functions. This whole subtheory seems to be an ugly mix of pop psychology, some arcane numerology, and a dogmatic reading of Jung (who wrote a lot of bullshit to begin with).

    Conclusion: MBTI is at least partially bullshit, but it's interesting anyway. The Big 5 seems a lot more useful to me but it's got one big disadvantage: nobody wants to talk about how neurotic they are. The MBTI is less invasive.

    Edit: That said... I think I really showed my type (INtP) by starting this thread. Google "MBTI bullshit" and you get a thread from an INFP site, a thread from an INTP site, and this one. :P

  10. #60
    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 Xander View Post
    Verified, measured & quantified by whom? When do you measure them?

    Ooo, just realised... I have no idea what height you are... ergo you don't exist... I'm replying to a non existent entity... Eeek!!! I'm running the risk of endangering my existence!!!
    Uh, I think you completely missed my point.

    My point was that there ARE lots of worthwhile ideas that are not quantifiable or empirically verifiable. I think we probably agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    For clarifications...

    The difference between MBTI and Big5

    Big5
    Proven to exist intrinsically in people across culture, age, gender
    Vigorous scientific experimentation consistently identify these categories in traits

    MBTI
    No proof for intrinsic existence of personality types in people. Appears to be arbitrary labels used to categorize people
    Vigorous scientific experimentation has consistently FAILED to disprove null hypothesis that MBTI types are made-up.

    Uhh dude, do me a favor and compare the Big 5 factors to the MBTI scales; they're all virtually the same concepts except MBTI lacks neuroticism.

    The other four line up almost exactly with MBTI's E/I, N/S, T/F and P/J scales...they're so conceptually similar it's hilarious.

    The only difference is that the Big 5 people came up with a better testing system. The ideas are all the same shit across all forms of psychological typology.

    (P.S., the Big 5 also fails utterly if you're not able or willing to self-report honestly. It suffers precisely the same problem.)
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

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