User Tag List

First 678

Results 71 to 80 of 80

  1. #71
    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
    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"
    Once again, you see correlations in people who are capable of honest self-report. The problem is that many people are not and it's impossible to tell the difference.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #72
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Once again, you see correlations in people who are capable of honest self-report. The problem is that many people are not and it's impossible to tell the difference.
    Yep. Hence I feel that there is some practical factor behind these cognitive functions and understanding the ideas behind them. They might not capture the whole personality, but they sure do capture aspects of a person.

    The OP seems to be suggesting to me. That these functions don't actually describe something, it's just a matter of confirmation bias. That if someone were to read it the different functions, assuming correct assessment, they would identify with all functions and there wouldn't be a distinctive pattern emerging. It'd just be random like that of newspaper astrology or fortune cookies.

    Removing people's analysis out of the picture. I would believe that the functions are descriptions of particular thinking patterns, but that can manifest in so many variable manner that would render MBTIs cognitive functions useless as a predictive tool.

  3. #73
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    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).
    You'd probably like this, then: INTP Central - View Single Post - A New Hybrid Function System

    I say it's a pretty interesting system, though I still find the processes (and complexes) useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    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.
    Don't forget the the Myers' attempt to match the fifth factor: "Comfort-Discomfort" in the type Differentiation Indicator (a specialized version of MBTI usually used in institutions).
    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

  4. #74
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    I'm torn between wanting to raze the MBTI system and use something like Jack Flack's model, or embracing something like Socionics that's more intricate and descriptive but potentially incorrect in certain places.

  5. #75
    Senior Member laughingebony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I am pretty sure the Big 5, at base, started with the lexical hypothesis.
    I'm sorry. Yes, that was the theory to which I was referring. I realize the way I worded my post indicated that the theory was something else, particularly, the sentence that was in quotation marks. They started with the lexical hypothesis, then went where the data took them. I claim that the lexical hypothesis is possible because it captures the essence of language itself. It is how language works. Beyond the lexical hypothesis, it is all empirical.

  6. #76
    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
    I'm torn between wanting to raze the MBTI system and use something like Jack Flack's model, or embracing something like Socionics that's more intricate and descriptive but potentially incorrect in certain places.
    How about just read all the sources and make up the one that works best for you?

    Btw, JF's system is total garbage. He thinks his Ni, Ne, Ti and Te are all equal; dude doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #77
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laughingebony View Post
    In asking this question, you assume that...

    1. It must be at least one of the two.
    2. It cannot be both.
    +1

    Science vs. bullshit is a false dichotomy.

  8. #78
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    How about just read all the sources and make up the one that works best for you?
    That's pretty much what I've done in my own mind, yeah, and that tends to be my default approach to a variety of subjects. My mental models keep getting refined as I discover more about the subject at hand. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to have certain meaningful discussions about them when everyone uses different fundamental definitions for the same concepts or when discussion is boiled down to the lowest common denominator because of the lack of agreement.

    See also: disagreement on the tertiary/auxiliary functions, interaction styles, shadow functions, and so on.

    Btw, JF's system is total garbage. He thinks his Ni, Ne, Ti and Te are all equal; dude doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
    Well, one who's devised a system in his own mind where introversion and extroversion doesn't "play" in his definitions of S/N and T/F is probably going to think that his Ne/Ni and Te/Ti are equal, at least. And they might well be--by his own definitions. And therein lies an example of the problem outlined just above.

    Although, I was more referencing it for its overall simplicity to contrast with Socionics's attempt at a more detailed explanation.

  9. #79
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    I think he has a great point, though, and the "in practice" relative scores of the different functions would of course figure into it. It's true that we have probably made a bit much of "function attitude"; at least more than Jung made of it. So as I have been saying, it is probably more about introverts and extraverts who chose a[n attitudinally neutral] function, and then the other three functions are used externally or internally according to either being rejected from the dominant ego orientation, or by the various complexes. JF rejects even this, but I see it as simply different perspectives of the same thing.
    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. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laughingebony View Post
    I'm sorry. Yes, that was the theory to which I was referring. I realize the way I worded my post indicated that the theory was something else, particularly, the sentence that was in quotation marks. They started with the lexical hypothesis, then went where the data took them. I claim that the lexical hypothesis is possible because it captures the essence of language itself. It is how language works. Beyond the lexical hypothesis, it is all empirical.
    The lexical hypothesis, despite its apparent simplicity is deeply connected with "traits" as a way of describing human behavior.

    There are further assumptions that were built into the analysis.When they did the correlations, they are implicitly seeing how "common descriptions" correlate with each other. In other words, the analysis implicitly embeds common perceptions (whether or not the perceptions are misconceptions) people have about personalities into the descriptions.

    So if it is common to associate "eccentricity" with "unreliability," that association will show up as a correlation even if the association is not valid in an "objective" description of personality.

    To put it more bluntly, in my understanding, the Big 5 is a description of the descriptions of personality, not a description of personality directly.

    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

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