MBTI is almost useless

[Totenkindly]

Thank you. People just take an interpretation that fits into their framework, except that it isn't their own framework, it's someone else's. They stop thinking for themselves.

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

What a meta-thread. It practices the same flaw it's bitching about. That's quite an achievement.

Confirmation bias cannot be overcome. We should stop trying to fight it. The people who think they've won out over it are the worst...

You just want me to agree, don't you?

 

[entropie]

I am not much of a psychologist and most of the time, it does not intrest me what people like or dislike. Nevertheless I started a very long time ago digging into psychology things. When I came to MBTI, I found it intresting to learn about Intuition and Sensing. The "old hat" that there are Feelers and Thinkers on this world was a clear thing to me, but Intuition and Sensing proved to be a completly new concept to me.

I dont see MBTI or any other system as a set of rules. As it is defined through my very nature, I make my own rules. I try to keep them in reality as much as I can and from time to time I listen to different views on life by other people and try to gather new information.

For me MBTI is less a set of rules but a source for information. It will probably be never possible for me to come up with an own stringent theory, because my view on the world is embedded into its very own conceptional framework. But I am not looking for that, I am rather more concerned with the outcome.

Through the information I gathered through MBTI, I was able to name things in my friends that I have seen before. I myself for example had a hard time in my life to solve the important question to me, if I am more of a rational or a people's person. I choosed, when I was very young to see people as "Blue" or "Red", but I never could make up my mind, what color I was. Eventually I came up with "Green", but this didnt fit into my concept .

MBTI was somewhat of a relief to me, to find an explanation to things, I sense, but have no clue about what they are. I will never judge a person buy any of the MBTI rules and my behaviour towards people did not change in any way.

But MBTI gave me a clearer view on things in a topic, I am not very good at. To be honest, I hate psychatrists and psychology and I naturally dislike every person dealing with this topics. But I am still here, doing psychology.

My advice to dealing with MBTI as a source of new views on things and not as a set of rules, probably will not help you. But then again, I do not think that a human being will ever be able to being filtered 100% through a fitting system and that is because I accept the possibility of free will and the responsibility that bears with it.

 

[Grayscale]

this goes for most ostensible labels, really

 

[redacted]

I admit it. But not the actual ability of thinking, the way the F will disregard thinking.

Not all Fs. See, one of the problems with the system is this. Say you're an Ni dominant. Well, you could either be an INTJ or an INFJ. But say you're an Ni dominant who uses Thinking more than Feeling AND prefers Ti/Fe to Te/Fi. Is that just not possible? Well, it's not possible in MBTI, but it surely is possible in real life. They call us INFJs, but we're really 'T's by dichotomy.

Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se. If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself.

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

There's no such thing as someone who isn't using confirmation bias. Any coherent viewpoint we pick -- we're gonna flock to reasons that support it and gloss over reasons that don't.

I'm doing it right now, and so is everyone else.

What a meta-thread. It practices the same flaw it's bitching about. That's quite an achievement.

That's kind of a pointless qualm. It's like if I said: "Philosophically, it's impossible to know the Truth as we don't have access to objective information". You'd say I'd be making a claim that I assume is objective about how no claims could be objective. So should I just not open my mouth?

this goes for most ostensible labels, really

True. So we should all think of this as a potentially erroneous labeling system. We need to question it's validity like we would anything else.

In case all y'all haven't noticed: I'm trying to convince myself as much as (if not more than) all of you.

 

[Jack Flak]

You lost me at INJ race car driver. 100% seriously.

 

[redacted]

You lost me at INJ race car driver. 100% seriously.

I don't know whether or not to take that seriously. Seriously.

 

[Jack Flak]

When I say seriously: Seriously. When I don't, roll one six-sided die. If the result is "6": Seriously.

 

[Totenkindly]

Not all Fs. See, one of the problems with the system is this. Say you're an Ni dominant. Well, you could either be an INTJ or an INFJ. But say you're an Ni dominant who uses Thinking more than Feeling AND prefers Ti/Fe to Te/Fi. Is that just not possible? Well, it's not possible in MBTI, but it surely is possible in real life. They call us INFJs, but we're really 'T's by dichotomy.

I don't know. Aren't there similar situations where generalizations are still useful? (Such as distinguishing between "white" people and "black" ones or other cultures, in order to determine probabilities of particular genetic differences?)

For, for example, just because some white people can still get sickle-cell anemia doesn't mean the generalizations (that the disease is more common in black populations) are useless or ill-founded.

People are complex entities. Usually to deal with the complexities, we can make general categories, then deal with deviations. MBTI does the same thing.

I guess your argument is, are the categories truly representative, or are the differentiations actually more of the standard and the MBTI theory itself the artifice.

Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se.

Not if they know you.
It's merely a baseline.

It says, if you prefer Se so strongly, chances are you're not INJ. Strong Se usually doesn't show up until later in life if it's your inferior. If it shows up early or preexisting your Ni+Je combo, you're probably not INJ!

So yes, now, if you look at an ADULT, you can't entirely predict what their functions will be... due to the natural differentiation that occurs in life experience. But I bet if you look at the child, you will see a strong primary and type is more clear.

If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself.

Maybe that's because of where you're entering the system. Like I said, if you try to analyze ADULTS directly, you're going to run across those problems.

It's one reason why I gave up arguing people's types. Like you insinuated, there are too many variables to know for sure if someone is a deviation from the assumed type or actually another type altogether. The only way to figure it out is a holistic approach that takes everything into account and also looks at growth over time. Which is a rather lengthy process.

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

There's no such thing as someone who isn't using confirmation bias. Any coherent viewpoint we pick -- we're gonna flock to reasons that support it and gloss over reasons that don't.

I'm doing it right now, and so is everyone else.

Yes.

So obviously we're discussing confirmation bias that goes beyond the "reasonable" inherent confirmation bias in any discussion, aren't we?

Just like we commonly discuss illogical/misperceptions that are unreasonable, even though we all know that no one has true knowledge of anything and so ANY piece of knowledge is perhaps unreasonable at the base level?

eeep.

That's kind of a pointless qualm. It's like if I said: "Philosophically, it's impossible to know the Truth as we don't have access to objective information". You'd say I'd be making a claim that I assume is objective about how no claims could be objective. So should I just not open my mouth?

See above.

I think it's clear I was distinguishing between the common "inherent" minor bias existing in everything and directly focusing on the extremity of your claim.

In case all y'all haven't noticed: I'm trying to convince myself as much (if not more) than all of you.

Oh. that is undoubtedly because you are an INFJ with a Ti obsession. *snort*

or something.

When I say seriously: Seriously. When I don't, roll one six-sided die. If the result is "6": Seriously.

I like the ten-siders better.
Seriously.

 

[Nocapszy]

It is useful in a macro sense, but applying it to individuals almost guarantees misapplication (unless you are extraordinarily careful, but then you're narrowing your scope so much that you end up not saying much).



I completely disagree. Staying on the level of dichotomies makes misapplication even more likely. Thinking versus Feeling? What a joke. You end up putting things against each other that aren't actually in opposition.

See note at rivalry.
Its not a contrast noobs.

Listen to dissonance.

 

[redacted]

I don't know. Aren't there similar situations where generalizations are still useful? (Such as distinguishing between "white" people and "black" ones or other cultures, in order to determine probabilities of particular genetic differences?)

For, for example, just because some white people can still get sickle-cell anemia doesn't mean the generalizations (that the disease is more common in black populations) are useless or ill-founded.

People are complex entities. Usually to deal with the complexities, we can make general categories, then deal with deviations. MBTI does the same thing.

I agree with what you're saying. Generalities are useful when you're talking about general people. But when you go to the individual level, you're not talking about averages or norms or whatever. I'm saying, MBTI doesn't really DO anything on the individual level. It takes almost as much work to apply it and account for all inconsistencies as it does to just throw out the framework and build from the ground up.

I guess your argument is, are the categories truly representative, or are the differentiations actually more of the standard and the MBTI theory itself the artifice.

Yeah. I'm pretty much arguing the latter.

Not if they know you.
It's merely a baseline.

See above (lol).

It says, if you prefer Se so strongly, chances are you're not INJ. Strong Se usually doesn't show up until later in life if it's your inferior. If it shows up early or preexisting your Ni+Je combo, you're probably not INJ!

So yes, now, if you look at an ADULT, you can't entirely predict what their functions will be... due to the natural differentiation that occurs in life experience. But I bet if you look at the child, you will see a strong primary and type is more clear.

Maybe that's because of where you're entering the system. Like I said, if you try to analyze ADULTS directly, you're going to run across those problems.

It's one reason why I gave up arguing people's types. Like you insinuated, there are too many variables to know for sure if someone is a deviation from the assumed type or actually another type altogether. The only way to figure it out is a holistic approach that takes everything into account and also looks at growth over time. Which is a rather lengthy process.

I don't think we disagree at all.

So obviously we're discussing confirmation bias that goes beyond the "reasonable" inherent confirmation bias in any discussion, aren't we?

Sure, and I'm saying, on a general level (because applying this to individuals would be losing information, lol, everything fits into this theme), people that use MBTI tend to go beyond "reasonable" inherent confirmation bias.

Oh. that is undoubtedly because you are an INFJ with a Ti obsession. *snort*

Undoubtedly

I like the ten-siders better.
Seriously.

What does that mean?

 

[entropie]

Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se. If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself.

I aggree with you, but I wanted to expand this. I do not want to defend MBTI, there are no structured theories I obey anyways.

But, if the racecar driver is possibly very much in touch with his Extroverted Sensing. Is it not a logical mistake then to conclude that he is possibly an INJ that it is in touch with his Se, because as per definition of MBTI INJ are this not.

Do you get, what I mean ? According to theory of the MBTI, a Se function is a lowly developed thing in an INJ, what stands and can not be corrupted without destroying the theory.

In my opinion the MBTI is right but it lacks precision. Then again it did never aim for precision, otherwise it would have picked more functions.

When I look at the MBTI, I focus on the main function and then try to break down its possible means towards oneself and the outer world. The INJ race driver could be very possibly a total blind man, who has no Se at all. But after studying a racetrack and driving it for sometime, he has got it in his blood. And then when driving he has hunches or a 6th sense about when a thing is going to happen.

See, I do not try to bend things into MBTI theory. But according to theory, you have your prime function and all others fall in its developed state in a gradient from 1 (main function) to nearly 0 (4th function).

That was meant by theory and you cant just say, someone is pretty good at his 3rd function, because according to theory, this would be his first function.

Do you get what I mean ? I am just picking on the logical inherent true nature here

 

[redacted]

See, I do not try to bend things into MBTI theory. But according to theory, you have your prime function and all others fall in its developed state in a gradient from 1 (main function) to nearly 0 (4th function).

It's obvious that everyone uses Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition all the time. Multiple times a second. If the dominant function has a value of 1, I bet the inferior function still has a value of .6+. But it's never applied like that. And even then, some people might have a .8 inferior and a .6 tertiary. Some other people might have a .2 inferior. All you can infer from the type is the dominant function, and the direction of the middle two. That's it. The order is just a trend; you can't apply that part.

 

[Nocapszy]

It is useful in a macro sense, but applying it to individuals almost guarantees misapplication (unless you are extraordinarily careful, but then you're narrowing your scope so much that you end up not saying much).



I completely disagree. Staying on the level of dichotomies makes misapplication even more likely. Thinking versus Feeling? What a joke. You end up putting things against each other that aren't actually in opposition.

See note at rivalry.
Its not a contrast noobs.

Listen to dissonance.

 

[entropie]

It's obvious that everyone uses Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition all the time. Multiple times a second. If the dominant function has a value of 1, I bet the inferior function still has a value of .6+. But it's never applied like that. And even then, some people might have a .8 inferior and a .6 tertiary. Some other people might have a .2 inferior. All you can infer from the type is the dominant function, and the direction of the middle two. That's it. The order is just a trend; you can't apply that part.

Ok, just wanted to make sure, no rules of the equation are being swallowed .

When it comes to what you say about, why someone can not have a Ti/Fe connection as opposed to the Te/Fi connection, I aggree with you. That is really, how you understand the functions. The functions in itself are completly made up and obey now natural rules.

So if the MBTI is really thought through, according to theory a Ti/Fe construct would lead an INFJ to be more likely an ENTP.

It is just the question, how far this is applicable for real psychology and how well the makers of MBTI thought this through.

Again according to theory a Ti/Fe construct, accompanied by Ni and Se cant really work, because you have no real perceiving function (if I got this right).

From my point of view, I think the MBTI stands in it correctly under 2 premisses. The 1st it is no science, it is made up. And 2nd you just can see how well you fit into one of the personalities, but you will never fit 100%. The personalities are more like the foundation of your personality of which you build your house on.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Arbitrary classifactions can actually be quite handy. What I do agree with though is that too many things about the MBTI or the functions is left undefined. A class system with fuzzy lines and gaping holes is no good.

 

[redacted]

Arbitrary classifactions can actually be quite handy. What I do agree with though is that too many things about the MBTI or the functions is left undefined. A class system with fuzzy lines and gaping holes is no good.

Even with all the lines defined (which they are in my understanding), MBTI really doesn't DO much besides the whole verbal shortcut thing.

 

[Jack Flak]

Even with all the lines defined (which they are in my understanding), MBTI really doesn't DO much besides the whole verbal shortcut thing.

As stated, if you find it useless, pay it no mind. It helps me IMMENSELY in determining how I will interact with a person--A Real World application.

 

[redacted]

As stated, if you find it useless, pay it no mind. It helps me IMMENSELY in determining how I will interact with a person--A Real World application.

We agree then. If someone finds it useful, they should use it. The application scares the shit out of me, though. Watch out for confirmation bias; that's all I have to say.

I personally don't find it useful; I get people quite well without it.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

What a meta-thread. It practices the same flaw it's bitching about. That's quite an achievement.

I love a good irony, and we people create them a'plenty.

I think there actually is a general way to distinguish between confirmation bias and a conclusion based on analysis. It has to do with recognizing and expressing the nature of the system. MBTI is by its nature an approximate system. Confirmation bias will use the natural flexibility and indistinctness of the system to mold it into preconceived hard, absolute results. The analytical mind will form conclusions that are a natural outgrowth of the system. MBTI is most useful when the fuzziness of its boundaries are kept clear in the mind and are integral to any conclusions based on its principles.

 

[Jack Flak]

We agree then. If someone finds it useful, they should use it. The application scares the shit out of me, though. Watch out for confirmation bias; that's all I have to say.

I personally don't find it useful; I get people quite well without it.

Moar:

You don't even need a written system to operate the way I do, but it simplifies it. You think "I have met a few people like you before, and when I said something like this, they hit me. I won't say this to you."