Is MBTI imaginary?

[Stanton Moore]

Is anything that is abstract, imaginary? Not in my estimation.
Having said that, MBTI does not describe much that is real. Its dichotomies and explanations are vague and subjective, so it cannot be considered science. It's really a 20-century version of astrology, with all of the magical patina removed and replaced with pseudo-science. That’s not really surprising if we remember that Jung was really into the occult and read mediaeval texts on alchemy.
Think about it. The sense that MBTI is somehow objective is tacitly believed by almost everyone on this message board. Why? Because most members are seeking some form of external validation. It’s really an attempt to be acceptable to the outside world. If it were actually descriptive, why would people constantly change their type? What does it matter to you, as an individual? Wouldn’t you take the same actions if your self-applied label was INFP or ESTJ? People confuse and blur the line between action and description with this stuff, and then behave as if the label they chose is internally meaningful.
A scientific test would be rigorous and exhaustive, because science attempts to describe the real. You as the test taker, do not get to determine the outcome, because the results must be valid when judged using the scientific method.

 

[dala]

MBTI is just a categorization system. Anything beyond that is based on intuitive leaps, anecdotal evidence, and untested hypotheses.

 

[InTheFlesh]

MBTI is just a categorization system. Anything beyond that is based on intuitive leaps, anecdotal evidence, and untested hypotheses.

You made a nice intuitive leap to that judgement.
Do you not need to be working with an untested hypotheses to determine that it's a categorization system in the first place?

 

[dala]

Not sure what you mean. Simple descriptions don't require intuitive leaps or hypotheses.

 

[InTheFlesh]

No, but claiming that it is a real-world categorization system means that it's been tested and deemed true in an objective way. What you said carried the assumption that MBTI was legitimate, when it's legitimacy was just accepted by your intuition.
MBTI is at best an untested hypothesis, so the only thing you would need to invalidate the implication that 'because it's untested, it's not legitimate' is the system itself.

 

[dala]

Now who's making a leap? A categorization system is anything that groups people or things into categories based on characteristics. Libraries (used to) use the Dewey-Decimal system. I use a categorization system to sort the music on my computer (based on genre, then band name), and occasionally to decide in which order I will eat my Smarties (color).

 

[InTheFlesh]

Yes, but there are objective properties those things possess that you group them by.
There are no objective facts about human nature, so the system itself is based on an untestable hypothesis.

 

[rav3n]

MBTI is a naming convention for shorthand usage, much like the names of fruit. Most people use the term orange, for oranges but you can call them bananas if you want. The only problem with unconventional naming is that no one will understand what fruit you're talking about.

I don't think anyone can truly dispute there are similar cognitive functions amongst the population. Whether these functions combine in a set manner to properly categorise 16 types, is a different matter. Going back to the fruit analogy, there are many species of oranges which include mandarins and tangerines but they all fall under the orange umbrella.

 

[InTheFlesh]

MBTI is a naming convention for shorthand usage, much like the names of fruit. Most people use the term orange, for oranges but you can call them bananas if you want. The only problem with unconventional naming is that no one will understand what fruit you're talking about.

I don't think anyone can truly dispute there are similar cognitive functions amongst the population. Whether these functions combine in a set manner to properly categorise 16 types, is a different matter. Going back to the fruit analogy, there are many species of oranges which include mandarins and tangerines but they all fall under the orange umbrella.

I don't think this is something that can be proven.

 

[rav3n]

I don't think this is something that can be proven.

True, as it relates to scientific proof. But you must agree that there are observable similarities whether through net result behaviours (where process to behaviour isn't necessarily causal) or through discussions with other individuals of how they process.

 

[InTheFlesh]

While I do feel that there may be observable truths, I don't think that what we observe necessarily correlates to metaphysical truth

 

[rav3n]

While I do feel that there may be observable truths, I don't think that what we observe necessarily correlates to metaphysical truth

Take psychology or sociology. Neither can necessarily be correlated to metaphysical truths.

And anyways, IMO, both psych and sociology are pseudo-sciences since results rarely repeat, unlike physics.

 

[InTheFlesh]

Ending arguments existentially by accident is fun
Especially when it supports my argument.

 

[NegativeZero]

... And being subjective, MBTI is imaginary.

LOLWUT

I suppose that makes emotions and differing tastes in music equally imaginary.

 

[Jaguar]

MBTI does not describe much that is real. It's really a 20-century version of astrology, with all of the magical patina removed and replaced with pseudo-science.

Shall we play a game?

Observe:

Jag is a natural skeptic. He needs to be convinced, and needs to see the
evidence, and your logic needs to be sound. Beyond reproach, even. This can
be quite an undertaking, but once won over, Jag will be your staunchest
ally. Jag is phenomenally analytical, meticulous, and painstaking. Jag loves
the research process, is as relentless and tenacious as a bulldog and pretty
much won't stop until he is damn good and ready.

Is it true? 100%.
Where did it come from?

Astrology.

Praise the Lord I have seen the light! I have been validated!

 

[Ginkgo]

Shall we play a game?

Observe:



Is it true? 100%.
Where did it come from?

Astrology.

Praise the Lord I have seen the light! I have been validated!

Join us, brother!

 

[miss fortune]

I saw this movie... I thought that it was rather overrated

 

[Mole]

A categorization system is anything that groups people or things into categories based on characteristics. Libraries (used to) use the Dewey-Decimal system.

Yes, the printing press was invented in 1440 and gave us printed words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books and libraries. And libraries were categorised. And so we started to think in terms of categories. Why, we even categorised ourselves into personality types.

However the Random Access Memory (RAM) became available in 1970 and so made categories redundant.

But here we categorise ourselves using MBTI while we actually relate to one another with Random Access Memory.

What will happen when we start thinking in terms of Random Access Memory?

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

MBTI is imaginary because it was imagined. It's a model and just as a model of the solar system is not the solar system...like Korzybski's map, which is simply a useful approximation of the territory, MBTI is just a useful simplistic approximation of the human psychological preference.

 

[Bamboo]

I'm pretty disappointed my earlier post wasn't cleverly re-adapted.

I made it ripe for picking.