User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 80

  1. #61
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    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.





    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.)
    Yeah the only difference with the big five is that part of their definition includes the fact that the scales are spectrums. MBTI's (as in the system designed by Myers and Briggs, not the version I use) big failure is the binary opposition aspect that any sane person would reject anyway...

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Big5
    Proven to exist intrinsically in people across culture, age, gender
    Vigorous scientific experimentation consistently identify these categories in traits
    This is interesting, because I rarely score the same on Big 5 tests. The results for me are more varied than even the MBTI tests.

    I know that the Big 5 is more accepted, but I have never understood the reasoning why.

    Also, I forget the paper, but I thought traits have proven to be less stable than type as a personality construct.

    Even though the Big 5 is more accepted academically, I really don't see how it is any more falsifiable.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #63
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ Don't tell that to Big 5 advocates who are just ABSOLUTELY DAMNED SURE that their system is somehow "objectively superior" to MBTI (when in reality all "testing" of psychological type is fundamentally ridiculous.)

    It's just like religious zealots who get really upset when you claim that their sect is the same shit as every other sect with only minor details changed.

    "NO WAY MINE IS UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT...JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS!"

    Sure it is, buddy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Yeah the only difference with the big five is that part of their definition includes the fact that the scales are spectrums. MBTI's (as in the system designed by Myers and Briggs, not the version I use) big failure is the binary opposition aspect that any sane person would reject anyway...
    I don't think Myers and Briggs claimed that Thinkers never use Feeling or anything like that. Are you sure about this?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #64
    Senior Member laughingebony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    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 scales in the Big Five hardly have any "concept" at all. The extent of the underlying concept is as follows:

    Factor analysis produced these five scales, so we'll use them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo
    I know that the Big 5 is more accepted, but I have never understood the reasoning why.
    I think part of it has to do with the fact that the scales were derived empirically, with just one underlying (and, IMO, very plausible) theory. "Let's go where the data takes us." Or something like that. And the data led to the five scales. The scales in the MBTI, on the other hand, were derived from some guy's theories based on his personal observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld
    when in reality all "testing" of psychological type is fundamentally ridiculous.
    Cool.

  5. #65
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Am I only the one who finds statements such as "It doesn't have a concept" utterly ridiculous?

    HINT: The problem is in the self-report testing mechanism.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #66
    Senior Member laughingebony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The problem is in the self-report testing mechanism.
    Then I guess it's a good thing the FFM scales were derived mostly from peer evaluations.

  7. #67
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbw View Post
    Is the MBTI science, or is it bullshit? (I'm already pretty sure that the enneagram is bullshit.)
    Is history a science?

    If it is, it is invalid.
    If it is not, it is valid.
    Choose your pick.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laughingebony View Post
    The scales in the Big Five hardly have any "concept" at all. The extent of the underlying concept is as follows:

    Factor analysis produced these five scales, so we'll use them.



    I think part of it has to do with the fact that the scales were derived empirically, with just one underlying (and, IMO, very plausible) theory. "Let's go where the data takes us." Or something like that. And the data led to the five scales. The scales in the MBTI, on the other hand, were derived from some guy's theories based on his personal observations.
    I am pretty sure the Big 5, at base, started with the lexical hypothesis. It has been a while since I looked into it, but I believe they took a bunch of descriptive words of people and ran factor analysis on it to see how the descriptions correlated with each other and came up with five somewhat independent factors.

    Anybody who claims to have started with "no concept" is lying. It may simply be an indication that they don't understand their starting concepts (and possibly never examined them).

    The inherent assumption in this is that descriptions do a good job of capturing personality. Essentially, the assumption is that "personality" is well defined as a set of "traits."

    I find this theory just as unfalsifiable as the theory of archetypes. I also believe that "traits" (if they exist in a well-defined manner) are very mailable.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #69
    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 laughingebony View Post
    Then I guess it's a good thing the FFM scales were derived mostly from peer evaluations.
    K so suddenly we've introduced a huge degree of subjectivity based on people's opinions and perceptions of each other?

    Whoops. Not so scientific anymore.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #70
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbw View Post
    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
    If the cognitive functions are purely BS. You'd have to ask yourself, why the heck does there seem to be some correlation between types and the dominant/auxillary function. Surely if it was purely BS, there'd be no statistical correlation at all. That it's all an illusion.

    Cognitive functions capture something. I identify with Si alot more than I do with Ne, in that regard it can just be seen as "S vs N"

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