User Tag List

First 91011

Results 101 to 108 of 108

  1. #101
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    I was once a strong advocate for MBTI. But that was before I expanded my knowledge-banks to neuroscience, not to mention my own collective research on the functions. Now, I put forward the proposition that typology is an inaccurate, and rather flawed, theory that attempts to simplify a very complex and diverse system that has only recently been explored in-depth within the mid to late 90's (you could even pinpoint rapid advances to the early 2000's) and we still don't know much!
    A theory is a theory if it follows two distinctive traits:
    (1) It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model, and
    (2) It must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
    These are generally held to standard in physics, but I don't see why it couldn't hold weight to theories in other scientific fields.

    MBTI often has a hard time meeting those two criteria.

    Typology theories, like MBTI to use as the prime example here (most familiar with) attempts to configure personalities that overlap, and often contradict, the core of each established identity. I could point out that the brain is a complex system of chemical and electrical reactions/impulses, ones that can be quantized, and would therefore fit in to the uncertainty principle. If you wanted to expand the uncertainty principle to a larger concept, you could propose that the more you attempt to define and pinpoint a person's personality, the less certain you can predict how it is moving. On the flip side, the more you attempt to predict where a person's personality is going, the less certain you can predict where it is at.
    That may be entirely untrue though, as quantum mechanics is quantized, whereas in physics the level of personalities would fall under the threshold of General Relativity (if the only connection to General Relativity is the abstract view.) But I wouldn't the uncertainty principle maintains an important connection to personalities.

    Furthermore, in the realms of neuroscience, the brain's structure can change over time, which then presents the dilemna of fixated personalities. Some neuroscientists and psychologists have argued against typology as the changing structure can throw typology into realms of questionable limits.

    To add to the frustration is a myriad of subjective definitions of each function, with a unified definitization of each function non-existent, if not entirely vague. Few people like to refer to Jung, as his results are questionable. Even Myers's results could be questioned.

    Edit - You can't discount that people like MBTI because it does have aspects of simplicity to it, and can be used with some ease. It is like comparing Newton's Laws to Einstein's General Relativity: Newton's laws, like gravity for example, have proven inaccurate, but it is also easy to use and not fully innacurate! General Relativity is far more precise, but Newtons's is not too shabby.

    It is interesting to hear about, and discuss, the different angles of the theory of MBTI.
    First of all, bravo on an excellent, thoughtful, objective post.

    Have you done any research on Jon Niednagel? He's best known for his work in sports, but he's also working behind the scenes to identify the 16 types through genetics. He believes we are born as one of the 16 types, and that it predicts not only much of our behavior and cognition, but even our motor skills (he usually types people based on the latter observations). He prefers the term "Brain Typing" to personality typing because people's personalities can change based on a number of things - upbringing, personal morality, brain health (neurotransmitters, etc.).

    I agree that people can easily get caught up in the vagueness of function theory - how does one apply something that's pretty nebulous? I showed a lot of what may be termed "Ne" as a child, but some people here swear that my video appears Ni. I'm speaking abstractly as can be, so couldn't one come to the conclusion that I am, in essence, extroverting Ne and not introverting Ni?

    Niednagel's Brain Typing has about the clearest methodology I have found so far, but it's still not completely provable. As a school teacher, I would say that the majority of my students are NATURALLY extroverted, spacy and daydreamy, not too worried about how they come across to others, and tend to be far more open-ended than organized, in keeping with Niednagel's theory that ENTP is way way WAY more common than MBTI fans think - and that their motor skills tend to be rather loose, etc. in keeping with his motor connections with type - but even so, it's not like we have a blood test right now that can confirm an inborn type. People can always counteract observations with ones that contradict them, after all - the brain is too complex to be strictly extroverted or introverted all the time, motor skills can be developed with practice, etc.

    Whatever the truth may end up being about typology - we're just at the tip of the iceberg right now in neuroscience - I look forward to learning more about how the brain works. We have SO MUCH to learn.

  2. #102
    Earth Exalted Thursday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LIE
    Posts
    3,965

    Default

    The way that INTJs are perceived, as the most rare and competent people who don't care what other's think and follow their own rules, and don't mind being alone, speak to the general populace who are studying MBTI and personality theories while ultimately seeking identity. The allure of that makes for a lot of wishful thinking and misplaced clicks on tests (the test, by and large, are rubbish)
    I N V I C T U S

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thursday View Post
    (the test, by and large, are rubbish)
    Agreed. And now with the evidence in the links below:

    http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
    Of all of the tests I would suspect that one has the biggest intuitive bias of them all.

    http://www.personalitytest.net/cgi-bin/q.pl
    That test is somewhat better though it seems to have a thinking bias.

    http://kisa.ca/personality/
    The questions on this test seem okay but it lacks a sufficient number of questions to gather enough data for a proper analysis.

    http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/
    This test both lacks enough questions and has too many answers to pick from as it should really be asking are you one way or the other.

    http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx
    Of all the standardized MBTI tests I would say this is the best one but even it is missing the cognition apsect of personality.

    http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm
    This test is also above average but nonetheless some its questions sound kind of off base like what kind of INTJ is captivated by Ni mystical mumbo jumbo whithout empirical proof?

    http://similarminds.com/index.html
    Now these tests have the most full and complete selections available although they still have too many answers to pick from for it be definitive.

    Ok I could link a lot more of these overall bogus tests where people answer how they want to see themselves in suspension of a critical scrutiny but I think this should be enough.

  4. #104
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Many people mistype, not just as INTJ's.

    When it comes to typing yourself. One or more of these three points probably apply to a lot of people when they take tests:

    - A lot of important key information may be taken for granted and disregarded when formulating descisions.
    - Other information may be excluded through insecurities
    - Misinformation may be added based on ideologies

    And that is without taking into account the fact that many people new to typology have no proper understanding off all angles and motives required to properly type without the use of tests either.

    Although I do remember typing myself as INTP pretty much right off the bat, just having a few concerns about possibly being ENTP but swiftly threw that off the table as I was gaining insight into the workings of MBTI. I still mistyped my enneagram for a very long time, being quite sure I was enneagram 5. This was mostly due to my personal failure of fully understanding my subconscious self. It required a lot of introspection, exposing my subconscious tendencies, to realize my true enneagram.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  5. #105
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karmacoma View Post
    My reasoning is this - ENTP and INTJ both are dominant Conceptuals and secondary Thinkers, but since ENTPs are often the weakest extrovert type at showing interpersonal intelligence, they can easily and understandably appear like pedantic INTJs.
    Why would you think ENTP is worse at interpersonal intelligence than ENTJ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    The descriptions sound glamorous. Who wouldn't want to be the visionary Mastermind. Sounds a lot better than the "thinker" (loser), "idealist (pussy) or duty-fulfiller (dullard), right??? Come on this should be obvious! OK so maybe htis is only true on a superficial level. But most people only view this on a superficial level anyway so the objection is irrelevant!

    The reality is often different of course. But people get obsessed with the imagined ideal. If they met some of the INTJ's I met IRL* they would think twice

    *[I]Cue predictable question about "where did you meet so many INTJ's IRL"?
    I meet unusually many INTJs (and INTPs) as well, due to my occupation. The highlighted is the problem. Type theories are like many things, in that you get out what you put in. If you are not going to try to understand the theory, and the pluses and minuses of each type, you will be easily swayed by misconceptions and wishful thinking. Perhaps this accounts for much of the mistyping that occurs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    And that is without taking into account the fact that many people new to typology have no proper understanding off all angles and motives required to properly type without the use of tests either.
    Same thing. If I recall correctly, the original MBTI questions were developed by working backwards, using people that Myers and Briggs had typed through other means, based on Jung's basic concepts. The test was thus designed in such a way that a person's type determined by the scoring rubric would match their independently determined type. The success rate was never 100%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    I was once a strong advocate for MBTI. But that was before I expanded my knowledge-banks to neuroscience, not to mention my own collective research on the functions. Now, I put forward the proposition that typology is an inaccurate, and rather flawed, theory that attempts to simplify a very complex and diverse system that has only recently been explored in-depth within the mid to late 90's (you could even pinpoint rapid advances to the early 2000's) and we still don't know much!
    A theory is a theory if it follows two distinctive traits:
    (1) It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model, and
    (2) It must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
    These are generally held to standard in physics, but I don't see why it couldn't hold weight to theories in other scientific fields.

    MBTI often has a hard time meeting those two criteria.
    This is a fair requirement. No personality theory will meet it with the accuracy level of a physics theory. It is more akin to trying to predict the weather. Both are based on physical principles, but there is an element of randomness plus things we do not (yet) know that reduce predictive ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    Typology theories, like MBTI to use as the prime example here (most familiar with) attempts to configure personalities that overlap, and often contradict, the core of each established identity. I could point out that the brain is a complex system of chemical and electrical reactions/impulses, ones that can be quantized, and would therefore fit in to the uncertainty principle. If you wanted to expand the uncertainty principle to a larger concept, you could propose that the more you attempt to define and pinpoint a person's personality, the less certain you can predict how it is moving. On the flip side, the more you attempt to predict where a person's personality is going, the less certain you can predict where it is at.
    That may be entirely untrue though, as quantum mechanics is quantized, whereas in physics the level of personalities would fall under the threshold of General Relativity (if the only connection to General Relativity is the abstract view.) But I wouldn't the uncertainty principle maintains an important connection to personalities.

    Furthermore, in the realms of neuroscience, the brain's structure can change over time, which then presents the dilemna of fixated personalities. Some neuroscientists and psychologists have argued against typology as the changing structure can throw typology into realms of questionable limits.
    What do you mean by the highlighted? Quantum mechanics is not applicable here, and the uncertainty principle can be applied at most figuratively.

    Your observation about changes in brain structure over time, though, is worthwhile. I have wondered about this myself. I have a friend who experienced brain trauma several years ago, and observed a significant influence on her personality. (I did not know her well enough before this event to compare myself.) I have read several articles in recent years identifying the physiological origins of some of the components of type theory, e.g. introversion vs. extraversion, and behaviors like being orderly or conscientious (sounds more like Big 5 on some of these). I wonder if it will be only a matter of time before the four dichotomies, or five, or whatever turns out to be the case physiologically, are mapped out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    Edit - You can't discount that people like MBTI because it does have aspects of simplicity to it, and can be used with some ease. It is like comparing Newton's Laws to Einstein's General Relativity: Newton's laws, like gravity for example, have proven inaccurate, but it is also easy to use and not fully innacurate! General Relativity is far more precise, but Newtons's is not too shabby.
    This is a good analogy. Newtonian physics, after all, is good enough to get a rocket to the moon. For all its limitations, MBTI also has its uses. The problems come when we expect more from it than it can deliver, or try to use it for purposes to which it is ill suited.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Behold the ultimate mistyped wannabe INTJ!

  7. #107
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    So tell me, who is the bigger idiot?,

    The one who asserts their type, but can't prove it without making philosophical assumptions?
    OR
    The user who knows why other people are mistyped?

    Yeah, who's mistyped and who isn't; and if that's the question in mind, you're doing it.
    Let's all laugh at the stupidity of it.

  8. #108
    Senior Member deathwarmedup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    INTJs have a gift for looking very calm and collected and self contained and forever in control.
    As do ISTJs. The distinguishing visual feature is that INTJs maintain a long psychological distance.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Why are there so many INFPs here...
    By rooo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-07-2016, 11:04 PM
  2. Replies: 113
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 12:33 AM
  3. [NT] Why does so many people fail to get rich?
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 09:32 PM
  4. Replies: 135
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 10:00 PM

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