• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

your mbti type does not change!

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
^ That's all pretty narrow-minded. Try listening a little instead... MBTI isn't a perfect system, and you can't force people to accept something as impossible because the system says so.
Besides, like someone said earlier... Too many false assumptions and shoddy research.

This is true. Like I mentioned earlier, I guess technically you can't change your "MBTI type" if MBTI theorists say so. Since that is the going theory, you'd almost have to change the entire theory all together and it wouldn't be called MBTI anymore. For me, I just question the entire theory. (Not it's excellent ability to describe people and situations, but the fact that people are all one of 16 types biologically.)
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
^ That's all pretty narrow-minded. Try listening a little instead... MBTI isn't a perfect system, and you can't force people to accept something as impossible because the system says so.
Besides, like someone said earlier... Too many false assumptions and shoddy research.

i listened in school, thats why i was able to write that stuff. they talked about this on personality psychology, neuropsychology and little on developmental psychology courses.

the basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Personality_traits said:
Personality is a frequently cited example of a heritable trait that has been studied in twins and adoptions. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than randomly selected pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins. Also, biological siblings are more similar in personality than adoptive siblings. Each observation suggests that personality is heritable to a certain extent. However, these same study designs allow for the examination of environment as well as genes. Adoption studies also directly measure the strength of shared family effects. Adopted siblings share only family environment. Most adoption studies indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are little or no more similar than random pairs of strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on personality are zero by adulthood. As is the case with personality, non-shared environmental effects are often found to out-weigh shared environmental effects. That is, environmental effects that are typically thought to be life-shaping (such as family life) may have less of an impact than non-shared effects, which are harder to identify. One possible source of non-shared effects is the environment of pre-natal development. Random variations in the genetic program of development may be a substantial source of non-shared environment. These results suggest that "nurture" may not be the predominant factor in "environment."

before you start to disagree with this, would be nice to hear where you got your info from. i mean if you just refuse to listen to me(not trying to understand me) and say that im narrow minded, it just means that you are the one who is narrow minded to my(scientific) approach. if you wont be able to support what you say in any way, its not narrow minded for me to not believe you, because what you offer is narrow..
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I think I'd feel more miserable and tired in situations where ESFP was the best way to be all the time. Everyone (balanced) needs generalizations, big picture, theory, details, hindsight, present moment, introspection, reflection, socialization, external stimulation, justice, mercy, adaptability, and structure to happily survive. The only rating system for personality has to do with relativity to another person. Who is anyone to say what that's supposed to mean? Who is anyone to say how these preferences might change throughout the course of a life? I don't think it's easy- or even common. Certainly not impossible.

Lets say an INTP went into the military, became typical military material. Most people around here will say, "oh, they developed their Fe or Si" (some J function.) or some other pathological/ shadow (whatever thing that neatly fits with the theory.) Who are we to say that he's not simply a J now? (or an "x", has a preference for both, completely disregarding functions.) He's just now happy with schedules, plans, and routines. And that's it. These theories are so fuzzy that you can mold them to fit any piece of any situation, (which makes a good theory, but doesn't necessarily mean that it's true all of the time.)

J isnt about being happy with schedules. you are just looking at stereotypes, not the actual personality types. J is about most dominant J function being extraverted. this usually leads to being happy with schedules, but thats a stereotype of personality type, not actual personality type..
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i listened in school, thats why i was able to write that stuff. they talked about this on personality psychology, neuropsychology and little on developmental psychology courses.

the basics:



before you start to disagree with this, would be nice to hear where you got your info from. i mean if you just refuse to listen to me(not trying to understand me) and say that im narrow minded, it just means that you are the one who is narrow minded to my(scientific) approach. if you wont be able to support what you say in any way, its not narrow minded for me to not believe you, because what you offer is narrow..

I don't think anyone is questioning nature vs. nurture. I'd like to see the solid science that MBTI is actually representative our biological makeup (aside from introversion and extroversion) and the study where they show that once an MBTI type, always an MBTI type. And that dichotomies are scientifically proven to remain the same in our chemical makeup- (that we can't simply change our preference for one thing over the other with behaviors and habits.) MBTI is represented by behaviors to start with, not DNA.

I haven't heard (or found) anything that said- "The DNA/ PET scan activity of that ENFJ is very similar to the ones of this ENFJ, and when this ENFJ starts to act like an ENTP and test like an ENTP, studies are showing that they are still an ENFJ anyways."

I'm not assuming that MBTI is the end-all of our personalities, that it is indeed the theory that fully describes human nature at it's core.
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
I don't think anyone is questioning nature vs. nurture. I'd like to see the solid science that MBTI is actually representative our biological makeup (aside from introversion and extroversion) and the study where they show that once an MBTI type, always an MBTI type. And that dichotomies are scientifically proven to remain the same in our chemical makeup- (that we can't simply change our preference for one thing over the other with behaviors and habits.) MBTI is represented by behaviors to start with, not DNA.

I haven't heard (or found) anything that said- "The DNA/ PET scan activity of that ENFJ is very similar to the ones of this ENFJ, and when this ENFJ starts to act like an ENTP and test like an ENTP, studies are showing that they are still an ENFJ anyways."

I'm not assuming that MBTI is the end-all of our personalities, that it is indeed the theory that fully describes human nature at it's core.

I agree with this. There's no scientific study in existence that bridges the gap between personality as an inherited trait and the personality model of MBTI, which doesn't take into account neuroplasticity. To say that personality type doesn't change implies that a brain functions the same from birth to death... don't completely ignore the many studies that show(literally, with the help of neuroimaging) the changes in the brain that can be caused by a variety of environmental factors, trauma, meditation, etc, etc....
 

Valiant

Courage is immortality
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
3,895
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Shorty, I have no idea how you can be so patient with this... I simply facepalmed one more time.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
MBTI is represented by behaviors to start with.

I haven't heard anywhere said that "The DNA/ PET scan activity of that ENFJ is very similar to the ones of this ENFJ, and when this ENFJ starts to act like an ENTP and test like an ENTP, studies are showing that they are still an ENFJ anyways."

bold is simply a false view at MBTI, socionics and big 5 is represented that way, not MBTI/jungian typology.

http://www.aptinternational.org/assets/jptvol65_1105_apti.pdf

too bad if you dont have access to full text, but abstract says few things
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11190091
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1981.00151.x/abstract

use google scholar for more
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
oh and you guys dont seem to tell behaviorism apart from cognitive psychology.

basically behaviorism looks at input -> behavioral output

cognitive psychology looks at input -> cognition(psychological processes that effect the output) -> behavioral output. and focuses on the cognition.

jungian functions are in the field of cognitive psychology, not behaviorism, thats why they are called cognitive functions.. socionics is in the field of behaviorism, because it looks at functions from behavioristic point of view, not cognitive
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
Oh...well, i finished reading the thread. I was going to reply to some more posts but apparently this is part of your lecture series. /evaporates
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
MBTI isn't a perfect system, and you can't force people to accept something as impossible because the system says so.

Exactly.

There are people who can't seem to differentiate between a theoretical construct and an observable fact.

Picture this scenario in your head:

I take you to a park that has 20 trees.
I place my hands over your eyes in a certain way that partially obscures your vision.
I ask you how many trees you see.
You answer 10.

There's 20.

Now, imagine a type theory that partially obscures your vision of a person.
What will you believe - the theory or what is actually true?

Years ago the DISC assessment was only a one-letter result.
People were categorized as D, I, S or C.
Today, people have the ability to be categorized as a blend, rather than only one letter.
That means someone can be categorized a D-I-C rather than just a D.
For years, people's vision was partially obscured by that theory.

MBTI is no different in its ability to obscure one's vision.
You can only see what a theory *allows* you to see, based on its construction.

The question you have to ask yourself is - does it matter if you can only see 10 trees when there are actually 20?

Food for thought.
 

Kierva

#KUWK
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
2,469
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Uh no, it doesn't change.

MBTI/JCF is about your cognitive preferences, the way you think -- not behavior. You will usually "consult" your dom + aux function of <insert type here> unless under stress, in which you will use your other functions (including shadow).
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i listened in school, thats why i was able to write that stuff. they talked about this on personality psychology, neuropsychology and little on developmental psychology courses.

the basics:



before you start to disagree with this, would be nice to hear where you got your info from. i mean if you just refuse to listen to me(not trying to understand me) and say that im narrow minded, it just means that you are the one who is narrow minded to my(scientific) approach. if you wont be able to support what you say in any way, its not narrow minded for me to not believe you, because what you offer is narrow..

Thats great and all that you sat in on some social science lectures. Unfortunately for us... it seems you never attended that "introduction to logic" lecture that would have gone over inductive vs deductive methods, scientific method as an example of inductive reasoning, and maybe even some kantian epistemology...

If we are to ignore people's actions, then what they hell are we going to go off of? People's thoughts? The problem is... people are horrible at being honest with themselves. People in hindsight often commit acts thinking one thing, and then later rationalize that they must have been thinking another thing. It'd be one thing we had certain brain flows mapped to functions, but that would be impossible, as we dont have "transcripts" of peoples thoughts. All we have is transcripts of blood flow and brain activity in certain regions. It's not proof of any function world views, because we cant record people's thoughts.

If the theory of MBTI is isolated from external data (ie peoples actions and thoughts) then factual statements about MBTI are basically going to fall into one of two categories: true by definition (2+2 = 4), or true "just because"/metaphysical.

So our options are:
<> accept jungian MBTI as a synthetic a priori (ie metaphysics..."MBTI religion")
<> pretend MBTI is as necessary and universal as 2 + 2 = 4 (analytic a priori)
<> accept that MBTI needs to be measured to external data... aka people's behavior (synthetic postriori)
Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, my list is...


Also, your rambling about twin studies and environment, and genetics interactions... You do realize that without an environment, there is no place for genetics to interact with, and without a genetics, there is nothing to take place in an environment. Basically, nature vs nurture is impossible to pin point as being x% environment and y% genes. You need all of both for a life to unfold. The twin study is simply a relic of the eugenics past that originated in the US of A. Racial hygiene was taught at Stanford University! Some professor blabbering on social sciences can't change logic. It couldn't in 1904 and it can't now.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Thats great and all that you sat in on some social science lectures. Unfortunately for us... it seems you never attended that "introduction to logic" lecture that would have gone over inductive vs deductive methods, scientific method as an example of inductive reasoning, and maybe even some kantian epistemology...

If we are to ignore people's actions, then what they hell are we going to go off of? People's thoughts? The problem is... people are horrible at being honest with themselves. People in hindsight often commit acts thinking one thing, and then later rationalize that they must have been thinking another thing. It'd be one thing we had certain brain flows mapped to functions, but that would be impossible, as we dont have "transcripts" of peoples thoughts. All we have is transcripts of blood flow and brain activity in certain regions. It's not proof of any function world views, because we cant record people's thoughts.

If the theory of MBTI is isolated from external data (ie peoples actions and thoughts) then factual statements about MBTI are basically going to fall into one of two categories: true by definition (2+2 = 4), or true "just because"/metaphysical.

So our options are:
<> accept jungian MBTI as a synthetic a priori (ie metaphysics..."MBTI religion")
<> pretend MBTI is as necessary and universal as 2 + 2 = 4 (analytic a priori)
<> accept that MBTI needs to be measured to external data... aka people's behavior (synthetic postriori)
Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, my list is...


Also, your rambling about twin studies and environment, and genetics interactions... You do realize that without an environment, there is no place for genetics to interact with, and without a genetics, there is nothing to take place in an environment. Basically, nature vs nurture is impossible to pin point as being x% environment and y% genes. You need all of both for a life to unfold. The twin study is simply a relic of the eugenics past that originated in the US of A. Racial hygiene was taught at Stanford University! Some professor blabbering on social sciences can't change logic. It couldn't in 1904 and it can't now.

we did go through inductive and deductive ways to come up with a personality theory, didnt talk much about kant, because im not studying philosophy. i dont really see what this has to do with the subject. that is ofc if you are saying that inductive theories are the only ones that can be truth. i see alot more truth in jungian types(mostly deductive) than in big 5(inductive). you simply cant explain the human mind properly with purely inductive research, its far too complicated for that, thats why big 5 is so simplistic and jungian types offer more. you should know that since you are acting like you know what you are talking about.

no one is talking about ignoring actions, but actions isnt what jungian typology is trying to explain, naturally cognitive processes do effect the actions(cognitive psychology is looking at behavior, but from the point of view of the brain processes(then there is the cognitive neuroscience that is looking to find neural connections to cognition)), but because actions vary sooo much even in the same situation because of different cognitions, its stupid to look at behavior without looking at cognition first. pure behaviorism has been abandoned many years ago already in the field of psychology, cognitive sciences replaced it simply because behaviorism fails to do what it was meant to do.

i really dont understand why you want to isolate MBTI from peoples thought processes, because thats exactly what MBTI is. that just doesent make any sense. but since we can see difference in types with EEG, its not necessary to look at behavior at all, its enough to make the patient think and let EEG read his brain waves. you could make a computer program that analyzes the brain waves and shows the right stuff on the screen to activate brains for measurements and you would get a type by showing computer screen to someone.

i know that environment activates genes and lack of environment would leave genes unactivated to some extend, i already said that.. i didnt say anything about % of nature vs nurture, dont put words into my mouth. i said that big 5 test could vary some % with identical twins(same genes), due to differences on environment activating genes and trying to repress natural tendencies of genetic behavior that has already been activated. gene for extraversion seems to be activated in already with babies under 3 months and its not dependable that much of environment(they havent studied putting a I and E new born babies in dark room yet and seeing if there would be difference when they hit 3 months, like there is if they have some interaction with the environment).

i really cant believe that you are comparing twin studies in personality research to racial hygiene :doh:

here is something you should watch:
http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/11

i know they talk about big 5, but this works the same way in jungian typology
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I would also like to add that adaptive use of unprefered cognative functions may also be mimic behaviour using already prefered cognative functions. And thus they are not the use of unprefered cognative functions at all.

I notice this in my customer relations, where I mimic behaviour that would otherwise be labeled as good use of Fe, without actually using actual Fe at all, just using the understanding of what Fe does on the surface.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
we did go through inductive and deductive ways to come up with a personality theory, didnt talk much about kant, because im not studying philosophy. i dont really see what this has to do with the subject. that is ofc if you are saying that inductive theories are the only ones that can be truth. i see alot more truth in jungian types(mostly deductive) than in big 5(inductive). you simply cant explain the human mind properly with purely inductive research, its far too complicated for that, thats why big 5 is so simplistic and jungian types offer more. you should know that since you are acting like you know what you are talking about.

no one is talking about ignoring actions, but actions isnt what jungian typology is trying to explain, naturally cognitive processes do effect the actions(cognitive psychology is looking at behavior, but from the point of view of the brain processes(then there is the cognitive neuroscience that is looking to find neural connections to cognition)), but because actions vary sooo much even in the same situation because of different cognitions, its stupid to look at behavior without looking at cognition first. pure behaviorism has been abandoned many years ago already in the field of psychology, cognitive sciences replaced it simply because behaviorism fails to do what it was meant to do.

i really dont understand why you want to isolate MBTI from peoples thought processes, because thats exactly what MBTI is. that just doesent make any sense. but since we can see difference in types with EEG, its not necessary to look at behavior at all, its enough to make the patient think and let EEG read his brain waves. you could make a computer program that analyzes the brain waves and shows the right stuff on the screen to activate brains for measurements and you would get a type by showing computer screen to someone.

i know that environment activates genes and lack of environment would leave genes unactivated to some extend, i already said that.. i didnt say anything about % of nature vs nurture, dont put words into my mouth. i said that big 5 test could vary some % with identical twins(same genes), due to differences on environment activating genes and trying to repress natural tendencies of genetic behavior that has already been activated. gene for extraversion seems to be activated in already with babies under 3 months and its not dependable that much of environment(they havent studied putting a I and E new born babies in dark room yet and seeing if there would be difference when they hit 3 months, like there is if they have some interaction with the environment).

i really cant believe that you are comparing twin studies in personality research to racial hygiene :doh:

here is something you should watch:
http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/11

i know they talk about big 5, but this works the same way in jungian typology

1. its imperative that everyone who has an interest in genetics and its potential application understand the track record of academics and genetics, genetic determinism and how american academics basically created the eugenics movement that started the holocaust. My comment on twin studies relates to their dubious origin in eugenics, and how genetic determinism is a farce, although many social scientists conduct studies as if it were fact.

2. I bring up Kant because what we are talking about here involves epistemology, and how to prove something as "factual". Mapping brain waves to activities doesn't map MBTI "cognitive world views" to certain activities. It merely proves brain waves match certain activities. To actually prove the "world view" aspect of MBTI, you'd have to have a (currently fictional) window into people ACTUAL thoughts. Minus that sort of "window into stream of consciousness though" that would provide empirical justification for a DIRECT LINK between MBTI functional world views and brain waves, you'd have to accept MBTI as a first principle. Because it's not necessary and universal, it's basically akin to accepting a religion, and is not like accepting a first principle such "all bachelors are unmarried". Basically, MBTI has very weak epistemological basis of actually being factual rather than simply a "the map is not the territory".

3. I don't get my jollies from stirring shit up, I swear :D. I'm just writing out some arguments...
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
It's definitely possible, brain wiring changes. Biggest example is an extrovert who has terrible stuff happen and for the rest of their life use introversion as a coping mechanism, losing trust in the outside world. I bet if we studied their brain, since the E/I axis does have an observable basis in brain chemistry, that their brain would look like an introvert brain, and be one. And by extension that would change the functions.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
bold is simply a false view at MBTI, socionics and big 5 is represented that way, not MBTI/jungian typology.

http://www.aptinternational.org/assets/jptvol65_1105_apti.pdf

too bad if you dont have access to full text, but abstract says few things
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11190091
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1981.00151.x/abstract

use google scholar for more

In reference to the top one, (since it's a full article, and skimmed it.)

And what I gleaned, (correct me if I'm wrong.)

A 2005 article where the latest quoted study was from 1985.
The percentages of people of each type differ from the supposed percentages within the general population
Study is not even remotely randomized- majority of test volunteers are female, all volunteers, college students, of a certain age group, only about 35 people.
No control groups

Yes, this is the definition of a pseudoscience as far as I can tell.

Is there a such thing as "peer reviewed" google scholar?
or "truely science" google scholar?

If so, I'm all over it.

Maybe this isn't the best study we have?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
In reference to the top one, (since it's a full article, and skimmed it.)

And what I gleaned, (correct me if I'm wrong.)

A 2005 article where the latest quoted study was from 1985.
The percentages of people of each type differ from the supposed percentages within the general population
Study is not even remotely randomized- majority of test volunteers are female, all volunteers, college students, of a certain age group, only about 35 people.
No control groups

Yes, this is the definition of a pseudoscience as far as I can tell.

Is there a such thing as "peer reviewed" google scholar?
or "truely science" google scholar?

If so, I'm all over it.

Maybe this isn't the best study we have?

MBTI has pseudoscience up the wazoo. But even if you had a control group, and even if your demographic of test takers was broad enough to be a good representative, the MBTI doesn't demonstrate one's MBTI type.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I would also like to add that adaptive use of unprefered cognative functions may also be mimic behaviour using already prefered cognative functions. And thus they are not the use of unprefered cognative functions at all.

I notice this in my customer relations, where I mimic behaviour that would otherwise be labeled as good use of Fe, without actually using actual Fe at all, just using the understanding of what Fe does on the surface.

Hey! That's a good point! Plus, it corroberates with the fact that MBTI doesn't reflect one's MBTI type if some self-conscious test taker is wringing out their brain stem to match some un-preferred rubish.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
1. its imperative that everyone who has an interest in genetics and its potential application understand the track record of academics and genetics, genetic determinism and how american academics basically created the eugenics movement that started the holocaust. My comment on twin studies relates to their dubious origin in eugenics, and how genetic determinism is a farce, although many social scientists conduct studies as if it were fact.

2. I bring up Kant because what we are talking about here involves epistemology, and how to prove something as "factual". Mapping brain waves to activities doesn't map MBTI "cognitive world views" to certain activities. It merely proves brain waves match certain activities. To actually prove the "world view" aspect of MBTI, you'd have to have a (currently fictional) window into people ACTUAL thoughts. Minus that sort of "window into stream of consciousness though" that would provide empirical justification for a DIRECT LINK between MBTI functional world views and brain waves, you'd have to accept MBTI as a first principle. Because it's not necessary and universal, it's basically akin to accepting a religion, and is not like accepting a first principle such "all bachelors are unmarried". Basically, MBTI has very weak epistemological basis of actually being factual rather than simply a "the map is not the territory".

3. I don't get my jollies from stirring shit up, I swear :D. I'm just writing out some arguments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vMC3TPuOOo


In reference to the top one, (since it's a full article, and skimmed it.)

And what I gleaned, (correct me if I'm wrong.)

A 2005 article where the latest quoted study was from 1985.
The percentages of people of each type differ from the supposed percentages within the general population
Study is not even remotely randomized- majority of test volunteers are female, all volunteers, college students, of a certain age group, only about 35 people.
No control groups

Yes, this is the definition of a pseudoscience as far as I can tell.

Is there a such thing as "peer reviewed" google scholar?
or "truely science" google scholar?

If so, I'm all over it.

Maybe this isn't the best study we have?

1. its a study that, not just a review of studies in the past. ofc it reviewed old results in the intro section like most studies do. you should read it more carefully

2. it doesent make any difference if the % differs from general population. why would it?

3. this sort of studies doesent require randomization, because it doesent require experimental research setup. male/female thing doesent make any difference for this, since type fits to both men and women and their brain activity has same effect to thought/perceptions than males. its the same thing with age. yes the sample size was pretty small, but its enough to give direction, especially in a study that doesent have other variables that might effect the outcome and only looks at how one attribute contributes to another.

4. correct method for this sort of studies is correlational research(studying how one exact attribute(brain activity) contributes to another(MBTI type)). no control groups are needed for correlational research, because you dont need to look at causality with this thing. control groups belong to experimental research and this sort of study doesent need experimental research setup, as it doesent have variables that might have an effect to give false results that you need to control.

google scholar gives links to sites, just like normal google. if you look at where the study is, you can see if its trusted source. i think its the best search engine available for public, i got access to one much better from school, that gives access to studies that you can only find abstract without passwords(like those two studies i posted earlier).

here are some trusted sources for studies: Academic Search Complete, Periodicals Index Online, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Proquest Databases, Aleksi, ARTO, Elektra, PubMed, Primo Central Index. but you cant get full texts for most studies from those if you dont have passwords/subscription. google scholar links for at least some of those sites
 
Top