User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 37

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlahBlahNounBlah View Post
    Although it's very simplistic, the most helpful aspects of typology for me have been J/P and N/S.


    Knowing that someone is an MBTI I/E or F/T hasn't helped me to understand anyone, because the way they work in MBTI does not reflect reality for me.


    But I see N/S and J/P differences repeatedly play out in life, and taking notice of this helps me to be more informed about human tendencies. I'm really grateful for this knowledge, because it has proven its use.


    For self-improvement and self-awareness, MBTI has been useless for me. Enneagram has been more helpful for that.
    I can't take Enneagram seriously. As far as getting more usefulness out of N/S and J/P, that's interesting but I don't think you can be selective about it. I/E seems to be the most obvious characteristic, and ignoring F/T knocks out 2 of the main personality groups.

  2. #22
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Fuckers.

    Y'all are applying your liberal ideas in the wrong place. One isn't liberated by saying MBTI is *just* a theory and *just* one theory at that. That, roughly, is to liberation what turning off the electricity is to illumination. And y'all are being liberal like that because you've got some other torch hidden in your pants and you know you don't have to worry about losing *just* another theory.

    Me? I run on introverted intuition. I like having place markers and tags on which to hang growing bundles of ideas and understandings. I get all liberal by saying not that Jung's pronouncements box me in, but that Jung started the ball rolling. I'm allowed to add perceptions, and accrete understanding.

    Unless you nerds go all, like, man, we have a toolbox. Toolbox--pfft! What you have is your own preference for dealing with information and a desire to protect your cognitive turf. That this horseshit actually is understandable given MBTI concepts at the very least illustrates the utility of this box we're all boxed in to.



    And people claiming errant types for themselves are screwing the datasets. Get back in your boxes, chocolates!
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #23
    Charting a course
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post



    And people claiming errant types for themselves are screwing the datasets.

    That's my job. And I enjoy it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Get back in your boxes, chocolates!
    Go climb in your own damn box. I'll be sure to staple the lid shut, so you can never get out again.


  4. #24
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Ne types are loud about how good it is to screw with datasets, how change and novelty and new perspectives are not just needed, they are lifegiving.

    Fine.

    But how about we screw with the Ne datasets. What would undermine Si, huh?

    How about something an INTJ would be okay with:

    To make progress it is unnecessary to consider past events. All that is needed is a vision of things to come and some instruments to hand. Yesterday is not just gone, it is without meaning and dwelling there strips action of purpose.

    Thus, if you wish to understand what you should do, you should where possible avoid any and all recollection of detailed pasts.


    Sweet?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #25
    Senior Member _Violence_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    146

    Default

    MBTI is based on an enclosed system (the MBTI system!) and of course, there will be inconsistencies and loopholes.

    It is best used, IMHO, as a reference to understanding, or attempting to codify human behavior and patterns.

    I don't know how "accurate" it is, but I don't think we can determine any statistical value; it would seem to me that the "accuracy" of MBTI would fluctuate on an individual basis, based on their interpretation to the questions given. Same with enneagrams, etc.

    As for me, there is not enough empirical/physical evidence to support many claims within psychology. That is to be expected, however, it is not an exact/hard science as per physics or biology. Much has to be based off of observations (whether direct or indirect), and assumptions based on behavioral patterns.

    However, actual empirical tests conducted in enclosed environments with precisely controlled variables is impossible to perform. Personally, I take everything with a grain of salt if there is not empirical evidence to support the claims. MBTI is interesting to think about, however.

    Also to consider - We DO NOT exist within vacuums and enclosed environments. I think it is a tad arrogant to say, the reality of human psychology is as simple as the MBTI system.

  6. #26
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    To OP's question:

    In theory, no. If there is any truth to MBTI it is that we do what we feel or think is right according to our cognative functions. And thus wether or not we trust in MBTI, we will still be, and remain, our unique selves.

    But it's not unthinkable that influence from knowledge about MBTI makes us more influencable towards the notions of types. And thus causes us to adapt in small ways to MBTI.

    Ironically though, even through adaption, we will still remain ourselves.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  7. #27
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delta223 View Post
    I agreed with the vast majority of the MBTI as it related to me... but at the same time I see a common complaint that it conditions us to put labels on people instead of see them for the unique individuals they really are.


    What do you guys think of this? Frankly I'm confused. We can not have the MBTI be too artifical to be true, and yet accurate at the same time. MBTI either accurately portrays the human condition or it doesn't.
    I think the MBTI letters are flawed. The jungian functions are better.

    So assume the 16 basic patterns of jungian functions which reps the 16 types.

    Then assume you have variants in each type taking an ENFP, NeFiTe as an example:
    1. normal NeFiTe
    2. Overdevelopment of tertiary NeTeFi
    3. No development of tertiary NeFi
    4. Development of supplemental functions via enviornmental osmosis or meditation or whatever. Any of the above three possibilities plus a toolbox of other functions.

    So that's 16 X 4=64 types. Assume some other unique folks out there who really have acquired or were born with weird combos of functions.

    So maybe 60% percent of folks cleanly fall into the "normal subtype" of the 16 types, another 30% fall into option 2 or 3 which could be considered different, and the last 10% fall into subtype 4 or the oddly combined function box.

    I love boxes (Te) but if the boxes dont fit that means something is fucked up and you need to modify the boxes. Unlike my INTJ conservative comrade in the black leather jacket, I endlessly create my own new boxes. Why not?

  8. #28
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    Unlike my INTJ conservative comrade in the black leather jacket, I endlessly create my own new boxes. Why not?

    It's too difficult for some to imagine other possibilities.

  9. #29
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Look at you guys with your possibilities. Name one.

    The biggest one you've got going for you is "there might be other arrangements of functions". You do realise that still MBTI, right? It's the "16 types + fuckups" developmental model of MBTI.

    I was thinking about it the other day: as INTJ, and seeing more and more clearly each day that the INTJ model applies, am I wearing the MBTi sunglasses and seeing only what they offer or is MBTI true and I'm seeing strengths that were there anyway to be consciously developed? Guess which answer I choose.

    Name a better possibility, you retards. You are NOT critiquing this model in the right way if the best you got is, gee, well, something else might be possible, knowadimeen?

    Pick up the ball and run with it or shun the ball for being round, your choice.



    EDIT: ahhh okay, I'm being too religious.

    But see, it has the holy grail: utility. A lot of real world phenomena appears verifiably explained. That's what I don't get about people saying it isn't verifiable: stuff plays out in real life like type theory says it will. At least, it does in some positive cases. It isn't verifiably complete as a model, nor is its actual level of depth verifiable, but this "toolbox" people speak of... if there was an actual toolbox, there'd be tools to asses the depth and applicability of MBTI too, the tools would be comparable. Are they? If they were, wouldn't we have a measure of MBTI as a tool that apparently we don't have.

    Learn to love the uncertainty of application. All this business of claiming other tools is just loving uncertainty in your own special cognitively approved fashion. Make a choice and Go!


    Wheee, look at me being all auxiliary Te about theory making. See how it's me choosing consciously to use Te as an auxiliary to introverted possibility? Me saying, wow, possibilities, choose one and see what happens. Maybe MBTI only works for INTJs.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  10. #30
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    EDIT: ahhh okay, I'm being too religious.
    When I think INTJ, for some reason your name never enters my mind.

Similar Threads

  1. Are we in a period of cultural stagnation?
    By Robopop in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 02-04-2012, 10:16 AM
  2. Why are we still fighting in the middle east?
    By Giggly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-11-2011, 04:52 AM
  3. Certainty in type and satisfaction with MBTI
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 08-24-2010, 09:52 AM
  4. Are we playing a fictional role in life?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 01:18 PM
  5. WHY are we interested in that?
    By Snow Turtle in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-24-2008, 09:28 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