User Tag List

View Poll Results: Which of the following describes you best?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm not very satisfied with the MBTI, and I am uncertain of my type.

    2 3.77%
  • I'm not very satisfied with the MBTI, and I am somewhat certain of my own type.

    3 5.66%
  • I'm not very satisfied with the MBTI, and I am quite certain of my own type.

    4 7.55%
  • I'm quite satisfied with the MBTI, and I am uncertain of my type.

    3 5.66%
  • I'm quite satisfied with the MBTI, and I am somewhat certain of my own type.

    7 13.21%
  • I'm quite satisfied with the MBTI, and I am quite certain of my own type.

    23 43.40%
  • I'm very satisfied with MBTI, and I am uncertain of my type.

    1 1.89%
  • I'm very satisfied with the MBTI, and I am somewhat certain of my own type.

    1 1.89%
  • I'm very satisfied with the MBTI, and I am quite certain of my own type.

    9 16.98%
First 123

Results 21 to 29 of 29

  1. #21
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    quite pleased/very certain

    i don't like too much of MBTI though. people apply it too much to EVERYTHING and a lot they shouldn't. I find myself over thinking a lot of it, too. I hate when this happens.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  2. #22
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quite satisfied, Somewhat certain.

    Quite satisfied, because for what I find the model useful for (providing a simplified structure for describing ways in which people's motivations and approaches differ), I think it does a fair job. But I don't hold much at all to the theory "behind" it. Especially the binary introverted/extraverted "functions" and prescribed function order stuff.

    Somewhat certain of my type, because I can narrow it down pretty well, but there are two or three that I identify with to varying degrees. I've pretty much decided that nailing myself down to an exact type doesn't really matter. Far more important is the realization that any given community is chock-full of multiple viewpoints and sets of motivations, and that understanding someone else may be (and likely is) working on a very different set of assumptions than I am -- and providing at least a few stereotypical "other" viewpoints that I can work from when trying to figure out what's going on.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #23
    L'anima non dimora Donna Cecilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    Well, it would be better for the theory yes - but then, normal distribution could best justify a 3-level preference, the middle being "no preference".

    I think it would make a fine system.
    I don´t think so.

    It would be like in marketing survey forms which are wrongly made. You will have lots of dorks who will choose "no preference" for all answers. There has to be a preference, or you will be missing great amounts of information.

    "An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise."
    Victor Hugo



    LII/INTj (Analyst) - 1w9 Sp/Sx - RC|O|EI - Melancholy/Choleric

  4. #24
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donna Cecilia View Post
    I don´t think so.

    It would be like in marketing survey forms which are wrongly made. You will have lots of dorks who will choose "no preference" for all answers. There has to be a preference, or you will be missing great amounts of information.
    Maybe forced-choice is best for individual item responses that depict individual situations, sure.

    But the overall picture, the aggregation of those item responses, may suggest that a person's treatment of situations is.. well, situational. That they don't always prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" one, for example.

    If that becomes the case, when it comes to the overreaching theory, we'll see a normal distribution with respect to function use or dichotomies overall. Some people will prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" approach nearly all the time the time--they'd be relative outliers. Many won't have such clear-cut preferences. If that's the case, a theory that allows for shades of gray is probably more accurate, even if item responses are forced-choice.

  5. #25
    L'anima non dimora Donna Cecilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Maybe forced-choice is best for individual item responses that depict individual situations, sure.

    But the overall picture, the aggregation of those item responses, may suggest that a person's treatment of situations is.. well, situational. That they don't always prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" one, for example.

    If that becomes the case, when it comes to the overreaching theory, we'll see a normal distribution with respect to function use or dichotomies overall. Some people will prefer a "Feeling" approach over a "Thinking" approach nearly all the time the time--they'd be relative outliers. Many won't have such clear-cut preferences. If that's the case, a theory that allows for shades of gray is probably more accurate, even if item responses are forced-choice.
    If shades of grey were allowed, then no typologycal instrument would be valid, since there won´t be any way to classify the data you gather, in order to analyze it and create a theory.

    Types are not existing objects, but variables to define and classify a population, according to the data you get from it. If you are creating a typologycal instrument, you are forced to use functions or dichotomies.

    "An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise."
    Victor Hugo



    LII/INTj (Analyst) - 1w9 Sp/Sx - RC|O|EI - Melancholy/Choleric

  6. #26
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donna Cecilia View Post
    If shades of grey were allowed, then no typologycal instrument would be valid, since there won´t be any way classify the data you gather, in order to analyze it and create a theory.

    Types are not existing objects, but variables to define and classify a population, according to the data you get from it. If you are creating a typologycal instrument, you are forced to use functions or dichotomies.
    Categorization is also fine. If you're categorizing something, and if you need hardline, "black and white" categorizations, then you've got to draw a line somewhere.

    But I'd argue that it's these "black and white" categorizations that would be the source of lost data. If a line is drawn somewhere down the middle of a distribution, and if the majority of a population falls around that line, then that sense of central tendency isn't captured by the categorizations.

    Which is fine, if you're not trying to develop a theory of personality that applies to all individuals, but, instead, your aim is for a categorization of personality.

    If it turns out that individuals don't neatly fit into categories--that they do have a tendency toward a middling classification--then conclusions that are based upon people reliably falling into those categories aren't really valid. If there's no grandiose distinction between the average Thinker and the average Feeler, for example, it's difficult to extrapolate anything based upon how individuals are classified--where they're classified doesn't tell you anything.

    Perhaps no typological theory based upon hardline categorizations is valid. In which case, I'd say.. so what? That points to a requirement for a different approach altogether, if categorization isn't the goal.

    (This whole "categorization being the goal" thing is exactly why I'm 'quite satisfied' with MBTI, given that it's primarily intended as a categorization system.)


    The Big Five does a fine job of providing a personality measure without needing to draw a function-based hardline categorization of individuals. Instead, it captures scaling tendencies based upon given data that shows correlations between certain attributes--collectively referred to as Extroversion, Openness, and so on. The Big Five measure allows for a sliding scale for each trait, it allows for individuals' tendencies to be based upon situational context, and it also allows for individuals to change.

    Those 'allowances' also happen to match reality in a pretty direct way.

    Perhaps an approach similar to that is necessary in order to capture the subtle nuances--the lost data--than other approaches.

  7. #27
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    I'm quite satisfied with the MBTI, and I am quite certain of my own type.

    I prefer Jungian theory to MBTI, which can become an oversimplified version, but at the same time, it's the gateway drug to Jung, so I see value in it. I don't see the system flawed so much as some people's grasp & use of it. I also spend waaaay too much time thinking about this stuff to not insist there is some validity in it .

    Oh yeah, and I am an INFP who is SURE of my type, and I don't see myself as a particularly unique INFP who defies INFP stereotypes (quite the contrary - I'm such a cliche).
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  8. #28
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    I prefer Jungian theory to MBTI, which can become an oversimplified version, but at the same time, it's the gateway drug to Jung, so I see value in it. I don't see the system flawed so much as some people's grasp & use of it. I also spend waaaay too much time thinking about this stuff to not insist there is some validity in it .
    I also prefer Jungian theory but without MBTI, I wouldn't have known where to begin so quickly.

    If you notice, MBTI and Jungian theory discusses preferences, not absolutes. If anyone's expecting absolutes, you'll not find when it comes to cognitive studies or theories.

    Preferences are what we normally lead with, whether good or bad, whether right or wrong. They're our coping strategies for daily life. After all, the first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.

  9. #29
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-15-2015, 03:14 PM
  2. Video: Enneagram Types and Subtypes with Helen Palmer
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2014, 12:28 PM
  3. Smiling in Pictures and MBTI Type
    By thirtyfour in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 03-08-2011, 11:08 PM
  4. Types and dealing with depression via cutting
    By ubiquitous1 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 05:43 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