User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 244

  1. #71
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    It's good enough for gubmint work. I've always been one to tout BOOKS over websites.
    The question isn't which is better (that's debatable anyway, but not the point). The question is which is most easily accessible to people who have just found out their type. What's the most likely source of information for a young 20s person (the biggest demographic here) who just found out about MBTI? The almighty google, of course (along with wikipedia, heavily drawn from the same few sites). Why go to the library to read a book written 20 years ago when google is right there, with constantly updated results?

    The personality tests that come up first on google will be the ones that most people use to find out their type. The sites that come up first on google searches are where most people will read about their discovered type. When the descriptions there are perceived as negative and/or inaccurate, many of us don't identify with the descriptions and conclude either that MBTI is BS or that their type is wrong. That's all I'm saying. It's not every internet description ever (there are a few out there that are ok), it's the most popular ones that are problematic.
    -end of thread-

  2. #72
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    The question isn't which is better (that's debatable anyway, but not the point). The question is which is most easily accessible to people who have just found out their type. What's the most likely source of information for a young 20s person (the biggest demographic here) who just found out about MBTI? The almighty google, of course (along with wikipedia, heavily drawn from the same few sites).

    The personality tests that come up first on google will be the ones that people use to find out their type. The sites that come up first on google searches are where people will read about their discovered type. When the descriptions there are perceived as negative and/or inaccurate, many of us don't identify with the descriptions and conclude either that MBTI is BS or that their type is wrong. That's all I'm saying. It's not every internet description ever (there are a few out there that are ok), it's the most popular ones that are problematic.
    But since the MBTI really is bs, it doesn't matter.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #73
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I posted this information here over a year ago, but it was posted by someone else before that. It's not speaking to an individual's type and IQ, only to groups taken as averages. I don't know what your vague reference to threads is about.
    First, you offer no link to the source of this IQ data, ergo initial credibility cannot be established.

    Second, you drag IQ into an argument that wasn't discussing IQ at all ... unless you are positing that INXX = higher IQ = interest in typology, which again was NOT the point, was it?

    Third, do you not think people tend to significantly exaggerate their self-reported IQ? (InterwebZ tests don't count. Where's their Stanford-Binet or Weschler scores?)

    Fourth, speaking of tests, are people using the real MBTI tests to identify type, or the many cheap crappy free online tests available? Without consistent testing, again inconsistent measures.

    And fifth, well, when it comes to threads, just look around. I don't see a lot of deep and insightful threads going on, do you? Empirical evidence for intelligence may be lacking too ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Those who disagree with me should also disagree with you. I bet they don't have the balls to.
    If I knew what you were arguing, it would be easier to disagree.

    However, to show I've got the balls:

    ball_room_420x315.jpg
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  4. #74
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    The question isn't which is better (that's debatable anyway, but not the point). The question is which is most easily accessible to people who have just found out their type. What's the most likely source of information for a young 20s person (the biggest demographic here) who just found out about MBTI? The almighty google, of course (along with wikipedia, heavily drawn from the same few sites). Why go to the library to read a book written 20 years ago when google is right there, with constantly updated results?

    The personality tests that come up first on google will be the ones that most people use to find out their type. The sites that come up first on google searches are where most people will read about their discovered type. When the descriptions there are perceived as negative and/or inaccurate, many of us don't identify with the descriptions and conclude either that MBTI is BS or that their type is wrong. That's all I'm saying. It's not every internet description ever (there are a few out there that are ok), it's the most popular ones that are problematic.
    ^ Very good post. This pretty much sums it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    But since the MBTI really is bs, it doesn't matter.
    It's this sort of thing that drives SJs away from the forum.

    If you want to debate, then debate! Don't take the easy way out.
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  5. #75
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    First, you offer no link to the source of this IQ data, ergo initial credibility cannot be established.
    That's fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Second, you drag IQ into an argument that wasn't discussing IQ at all ... unless you are positing that INXX = higher IQ = interest in typology, which again was NOT the point, was it?

    Third, do you not think people tend to significantly exaggerate their self-reported IQ? (InterwebZ tests don't count. Where's their Stanford-Binet or Weschler scores?)

    Fourth, speaking of tests, are people using the real MBTI tests to identify type, or the many cheap crappy free online tests available? Without consistent testing, again inconsistent measures.

    And fifth, well, when it comes to threads, just look around. I don't see a lot of deep and insightful threads going on, do you? Empirical evidence for intelligence may be lacking too ...

    If I knew what you were arguing, it would be easier to disagree.

    However, to show I've got the balls:

    ball_room_420x315.jpg
    Actually, when I was about 11 years old I told people, before I knew my score, that my IQ was 115. So I under-reported by 20 points, mainly because I didn't HAVE [feel the need] to exaggerate it. I was ok with 115 as my estimate.

    The part about finding deep, insightful threads is subjective. I went to INTPc, before I came here, looking for some deep, insightful threads, and didn't find any. While disappointing and puzzling, it didn't affect my estimate of the INTP average IQ because I don't base IQ off of thread quality, or forum quality. I stayed here because the quality of the forum is superior, and because the deep, insightful threads do exist. They're usually not quite up to my standards, but sufficiently enough to maintain my interest level. But I think the lower-quality stuff drags down the forum, and makes higher-quality stuff less likely to occur.

    Yes I dragged IQ into it because the thread/poll on IQ was disappointing - one of those lower-quality products here - and I used this thread to make a point. And I will believe it until someone offers me convincing evidence otherwise.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #76
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,896

    Default

    I also think forum culture has something to do with the distribution of types on the forum. How that fleshes out exactly, I'm not entirely sure.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  7. #77
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I also think forum culture has something to do with the distribution of types on the forum. How that fleshes out exactly, I'm not entirely sure.
    Is there any way to dredge up statistics of member types as at when they joined, rather than a snapshot in database time?

  8. #78
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andante View Post
    Is there any way to dredge up statistics of member types as at when they joined, rather than a snapshot in database time?
    There is. I won't have time to do it for a couple of days though. What do you think would be helpful to see? I don't think it will reveal much change from that distribution in the chart above but who knows.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #79
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andante View Post
    Is there any way to dredge up statistics of member types as at when they joined, rather than a snapshot in database time?
    Yes. http://www.typologycentral.com/forum....php?do=search. Enter desired join date ("before" and/or "after" desired dates), and type.

    Highlander's OP shows members joining before 2010, for example.

    edit: I put together types posting since Aug 1 as a more accurate reflection of "active", but the trend was similar enough to the others that I didn't bother posting it.
    -end of thread-

  10. #80
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    This is the first time I've ever seen you make a poor argument.
    I think your bias is showing ...
    Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Yes, people don't all have a clear understanding of type and wrongly self-identify with attributes they deem attractive rather than those that are real strengths.
    Why is it that everyone admits of this possibility but refuses to consider that its extent is anything but minimal? Especially in light of the very real strain of N superiority in both the descriptions and the typology communities?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    But to suggest there are no differences between the types in terms of typical interests and aptitudes is to say typology is bunk. In which case, why study it, why be here, and why call yourself an ESTP? The term is meaningless, according to you.
    I don't think differences between types can be reduced to differences in interests and aptitudes, no. That's not to say there are no differences between types, though. I'm not sure where you got that from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Your vehement rejection of your former INTPness says something to me (and it's not that you're ESTP).
    What does it say, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Myer's provides plenty of evidence to support the statistically significant differences between the interests/aptitudes of the types in Gift's Differing.
    I don't take any of that seriously for the same reasons that I've said earlier in this thread. People will self-report as the type that most closely embodies the values of their environment. It doesn't help when type descriptions explicitly list occupations and activities, because then this tendency is exacerbated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    INXXs are, by definition, people drawn to theoretical speculation and systems analysis. How could it come as a surprise to anyone that they find typology alluring? Similarly, who hasn't had a conversation with a Sensor about typology that didn't end in "oh, I don't have time for all that speculative crap".
    People are drawn to MBTI because they like to study the differences that they observe between themselves and others. I'm not sure how much more concrete you can get.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    While I do agree with Orangey and have seen her posts in the past, I am unsure of what to do with the idea. I am not going to argue with others about their types as I don't care or know enough and the general pointlessness of those debates. Many members have said in the past that there are more sensors here and point fingers at each other while sticking to their own bloated N's. This idea then leads to myself, while I do believe that I'm INFJ, how in fact do I know that I am not self-deceiving myself? Should I change to IXXJ and let other members decide how to view me (and unfortunately my arguments) while leaving doubt on both sides, bite the bullet and change it to ISTJ even though I feel I'll be deceiving others, or leave it as INFJ and live with my own doubt and others' doubts as I accuse others mentally of a mistake that I, myself, may be making? The best solution I've come up with so far has been to tell people when asked that I am hypothetically INFJ which still isn't ideal. Anyone have ideas on how to deal with that general situation? How do you truly determine your own type in spite of biases? If there are such strong biases present, are there truly types at all?
    Well, you can do several things.

    1. Don't take what anybody has to say about celebrity types seriously.
    2. Be skeptical about what anyone says regarding the functions, though some of it tends to be on the mark. You have to learn how to judge.
    3. Regarding your own type, be open to typing as an S type. Truly open. Find better descriptions to help you along. Socionics is generally better about it.
    4. Regarding your own type, solicit feedback from people IRL. People unconnected to these type communities. Try to see the patterns and fit them honestly...don't rationalize them into the type you're stuck on being.
    5. Regarding your own type, move away from descriptions and look at interaction/communication styles and solicit feedback about it from people IRL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    edit: I put together types posting since Aug 1 as a more accurate reflection of "active", but the trend was similar enough to the others that I didn't bother posting it.
    LOL.
    All Ns at the top.
    ENJs down with the Ss (though still above the majority of S types), because like I said they get treated here and in descriptions largely like the SJs of the Ns.
    If people are willing to be an S type, it has to be an ISxx type. Introversion over extraversion.

    So, yeah. N over S, I over E, and INTP über alles.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. A warm hello from a new forum user of MBTI Central here
    By bandit in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-18-2016, 11:38 PM
  2. Forum Statistics - % Of MBTI Types
    By highlander in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: 09-23-2013, 11:44 AM
  3. [Enne] Forum Statistics - % of Enneagram Types
    By highlander in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 03-18-2013, 09:57 AM
  4. 3 Different Kinds of MBTI Types?
    By amerellis in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 08-29-2011, 06:35 PM
  5. Anywhere to find photos of MBTI types?
    By Addict_Inquiry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2008, 11:17 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