User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 15 of 15

  1. #11
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hemd View Post
    There are two options:

    1) Function theory does make concrete statements about the behavior of people.

    This is what official Mbti says and also what Jung said. Mbti claims the function theory is real and has real life implications. But reality is, that after more than 50 years of mbti no one has come up with any evidence for function theory whatsoever, despite many tries. In contrast, for the preferences themselves there is tons of evidence from studies through for everyone observable behavior. But function theory statements don't fit the reality more than chance. It doesn't fit with real behavior of people and what it should be according to function theory. Thats what Reynierse shows in his various studies.
    IF function theory really made valid statements about behavior, it would be really easy to prove this with a study (self ratings and observer ratings about the behaviors people should show according to their functions). But in 50 years of mbti no one was able to do this, so its safe to assume there won't be any evidence in the future, because, well, personality simply doesn't work the way function theory claims.


    2) Function theory is just a concept of inner workings that can't be observed in real life.

    This isn't what mbti says. If someone says function theory doesn't make any statements about observable behavior, than what use has it, apart from a philosophical concept? If it doesn't have any influence in real life, that means it can't be proofed or falsified in any possible way. Of course you could see it as a philosophical concept with no real life application. Then no one can question its validity. Then it is a purely theoretical construction that only exists in our heads, a construct of our imagination. But then you can't say "person X behaves this way because of his Y function", because thats pure speculation and has nothing to do with reality. It's the same as discussing pokemon cards strenghts or which superhero is the strongest. Which can be fun and enlightening, but has nothing to do with real life and personality.


    For the Big Five personality theory there are literally thousands of studies, it is scientifically accepted in academia all over the world, but not well-known with lay-persons. Vice versa, Mbti is the choice of lay persons and corporate psychology, but science has generellay disregarded it as useless and flawed pop-psychology.
    While function theory might be more about inner workings, temperament theory is what deals with outward behavior, and mapping temperament to MBTI is what shows the link between them. While Keirsey may have done the initial mapping, yet rejected the functions in the process, Berens is the one who puts them all back together, and I don't know how many studies have been done on her models, but it seems pretty accurate or at least workable.

    Big Five is just trait-based dichotomies (And correlations have been done, and four of them match somewhat) similar to Keirsey, and they don't put it together into "temperaments" or "types" (except for the SLOAN version), so I don't see why that is really better or more accurate.
    It seems the functions add an additional useful dimension to understanding personality.
    Last edited by Eric B; 10-18-2012 at 06:44 PM.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #12
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hemd View Post
    A ton of. Psychoanalysis is just interpretation, it has nothing to do with empircal data. Empirical data is gathered by self-ratings and observer ratings of people. Normally on a scale from 1-5 ("mostly disagree" to "mostly agree") for every statement, for example you have to evalue the statement "not believing in function theory is retarded". There are pretty much studys on Mbti preferences with various outcomes, but none has ever shown any support for the function theory.
    For the Big Five personality theory there are literally thousands of studies, it is scientifically accepted in academia all over the world, but not well-known with lay-persons. Vice versa, Mbti is the choice of lay persons and corporate psychology, but science has generellay disregarded it as useless and flawed pop-psychology.
    this just shows that you dont really know what you are talking about. empirical data means data gathered by empirical research.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively.
    quantitative analysis is statistical/mathematical/computational type of analysis of empirical data. Reynierses work is based on statistical analysis of MBTI tests. when this sort of study should be done via qualitative analysis:

    Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often needed than large samples.

    In the conventional view, qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any more general conclusions are only propositions (informed assertions). Quantitative methods can then be used to seek empirical support for such research hypotheses. This view has been disputed by Oxford University professor Bent Flyvbjerg, who argues that qualitative methods and case study research may be used both for hypotheses-testing and for generalizing beyond the particular cases studied.

    Qualitative researchers typically rely on the following methods for gathering information: Participant Observation, Non-participant Observation, Field Notes, Reflexive Journals, Structured Interview, Semi-structured Interview, Unstructured Interview, and Analysis of documents and materials.
    = not only is his method of research flawed(which by itself makes his research useless), but it is also based on quantitative analysis on information that isnt even relevant to the issue, MBTI test. now you might think "why isnt MBTI test relevant?", simply because it doesent measure functions, it draws conclusions of the dichotomies based on indirect questions which hint at certain preferences and seeks for CLARITY of preference, the whole test isnt made to determine type, its meant as an aid which indicates towards certain type, not determine type(this is one of the basics of MBTI test, which you should know if you think you are in a position to argue about the subject) and reyinierses even twists this fact by making a claim that the scores reflect on strength of dichotomies, this isnt something that can be made via statistical analysis of answers.

    also what jung did with the analysis of his patients i would argue(and see the underlined on the above quote) constitutes hypothesis testing by qualitative research, which is a form of empirical research. i do agree that this method wouldnt pass the scientific criteria today, but nevertheless offers some pretty damn good insight to types and functions, much more than some statistical analysis of questions and suggestions of type that those questions offer.. this wasnt just done by jung, but is done by all jungian analysts who use typology as an aid to psychotherapy.

    now you are just making assumptions about research on type and functions. there has been only one small study which would give proper insight into type and functions, thats nardis work with eeg, which showed clearly that functions are the foundation to type, but because the study was so small, it doesent have much weight on scientific world.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #13
    Junior Member Hemd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    NFPI
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    why do you think that my opinion is based on ignorance on his opinion?

    what comes to him having published articles on journal of psychological type. if you think that it makes him some authority figure whos word should not be questioned, dont be so naive.

    people who publish stuff in scientific articles are just people, if you havent learned to doubt things you read in articles, you clearly dont have much knowledge of the field of scientific research and articles written by the "experts".
    Didn't know you've already answered in depth before. Also, calling someone and his work retarded doesn't seem like a good argument, no matter how well you can argue your opinion.
    Of course its good to question authorities, but i read all of his work and think it makes perfect sense and seems very knowledgable to me. It summarises what i suspected for a long while. And yes, i've also read dozens of other studys, so i know how to read and interpret those. I question everything i read. Experts are simply people like you and me. True. But they are people who know a lot about their subject, probably more than you and me, regardless of the opinion you have about them. You can't simply say he doesn't know shit when he published a scientific article and other experts think this article is worth their time and paper. Because peer reviewed means its looked over by other experts before it gets published, so evidently he hit a nerve in the mbti world.

    I can't see how Reynierse work is flawed. Yes, he has another understanding of type and functions then you have, but thats exactly the point! He says it doesn't and can't work the way mbti (and you) think.

    If you agree to my statement "1) Function theory does make concrete statements about the behavior of people." and say Reynierse work is flawed, then explain how functions can be scientifically tested otherwise.
    I doubt you can come up with a conclusive suggestion, because in 50 years of mbti research none of those experts has been able to prove anything. There are no studies on Berens model. Nardi's work hasn't been peer reviewed, no other scientists seem to take any interest in it, and the found correlations are really low. Most people here don't know, but academic science has discarded the principles of type (and therefore also functions and jungian concepts) more than 20 years ago. For them its nothing more than a form of pop-psychology or astrology. Thats why no other scientist takes Nardis work for serious at all.

    If one says function theory can't be scientifically tested, well, then we have what I explained in "2) Function theory is just a concept of inner workings that can't be observed in real life".
    Typologie auf deutsch: Typentest Persönlichkeitstest

  4. #14
    Junior Member Hemd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    NFPI
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    this just shows that you dont really know what you are talking about. empirical data means data gathered by empirical research.
    Can't follow you here. You say i don't know what it is and then citate something that basically explains the same thing i did already explain? Where is the contradiction?

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Reynierses work is based on statistical analysis of MBTI tests. when this sort of study should be done via qualitative analysis:
    Very good point. He did make also qualitative analysis. In most of his studies (also in the newest "Toward an Empirically Sound and Radically Revised Type Theory") he mentions observer ratings with lexical descriptors. Actually thats one of his main points, that presumed functions don't match up with independent observer ratings of behavior.
    There are similar studies, for example from Thorne and Gough in "Portraits of Type", where people were described by observers, not using any personality test for descriptions. The descriptions didn't fit functions and even didn't fit very good with presumed type features.

    You say the MBTI test isn't relevant. But even if it only hints at type, there are concurrents at far higher than chance level, otherwise the mbti test would be completely irrelevant and useless, which it obviously isn't. After all, it was constructed to measure, or hint, at jungian type, thats the purpose of judjing/perceiving. So it is relevant, at least to a certain percantage. Apart from that, what other instrument or method should be used? If a researcher doesn't use official mbti, it can be argued that his results are insignificant, because he didn't use it. So he has to.

    Psychoanalysis is indeed very interesting and intriguing. But since most of it is about the unconscious, it can't be tested or proved in any way. Everyone can throw in interpretations and theories which can't be proved. Which is, of course, part of the fun, but far from scientific.
    Typologie auf deutsch: Typentest Persönlichkeitstest

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I have observed that although as a rough generalization the congition of our minds should correlate with our respective personality types it seems that some folks effectively utilize functions outside of the top 4 functions on their list according to what type they are. Of course this could be accounted for by a theory that in our natural state we may not prefer these well developed functions as much even if we learn to effectively utilize them.

Similar Threads

  1. Type, cognitive functions, and drugs
    By Kurt.Is.God in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-28-2012, 05:01 PM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 10:13 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-08-2011, 10:05 AM
  4. Cognitive functions and problem solving
    By onemoretime in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-19-2011, 06:49 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