MBTI is almost useless

[redacted]

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.

I actually don't think MBTI is very fuzzy (or at least it isn't applied that way), which is essentially my problem with it. The only room for fuzziness in the system is how the four functions interact with each other, not within the functions. (I guess this is a pretty nit-picky point; forgive me. It seems we agree anyway.)

As long as the fuzziness is clear (heh, that sounds funny), you're right, it's possible to use the system correctly. Again, and this is really the point of the thread, to actually use it this way seems to take as much work as building a framework from scratch for each person. And I find that I actually do that. MBTI might give me a tiny jumping off point, but not much.

 

[redacted]

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."

Oh yes. I do this all the time. MBTI is not necessary for this, though. In fact, it might make you think people are different that are actually close to the same. You might NOT see this if the two similar (within a certain trait) people happen to be ISTJ and ENFP for example.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Even with all the lines defined (which they are in my understanding)

I still don't think there is enough definition on how we are supposed to perceive "levels" of function usage.

MBTI really doesn't DO much besides the whole verbal shortcut thing.

Well, that's kind of the point. If a fully defined MBTI is useless, then so is animal taxanomy, or conventions of logic, etc...

 

[redacted]

I still don't think there is enough definition on how we are supposed to perceive "levels" of function usage.

There are no "levels" of function usage. There is just function interaction. Maturity comes from frequent use of each function. The functions themselves stay the exact same.

Well, that's kind of the point. If a fully defined MBTI is useless, then so is animal taxanomy, or conventions of logic, etc...

I agree here. It is the point, it's basically the only point. To apply it further is the mistake I see many people making all over this forum. Look at some of the recent threads...

 

[sleepless]

I never got this from your first post:

The problem is, there is always more than one way to describe a behavior from a functional standpoint. Ne, Fi, Te, Si can solve the same problem that Se, Ti, Fe, Ni can solve. They can explain their thought processes in the same way.

I don't think I have heard this before. Could you explain? (please)

 

[Athenian200]

I can completely connect with people (almost on par with therapists), and I essentially don't use the MBTI framework at all in doing so. If anything, it's hindered my ability since I'm losing information trying to shove an irregular shape into a regular-shaped-hole.

I fear you're right. But MBTI is such an interesting framework... it's hard to let go of it. I know it doesn't really work as well as my own way of understanding and guessing about people (after several years of trying to make it work), and I'm trying not to use it seriously anymore. I think it might be hard to stop trying to think in terms of it, though.

It's kind of like one of my friends said... you should just view it as a "conceptual toy" to play with, and not take it seriously. I think I'm better off thinking of it that way.

 

[redacted]

I fear you're right. But MBTI is such an interesting framework... it's hard to let go of it. I know it doesn't really work as well as my own way of understanding and guessing about people (after several years of trying to make it work), and I'm trying not to use it seriously anymore. I think it might be hard to stop trying to think in terms of it, though.

It's kind of like one of my friends said... you should just view it as a "conceptual toy" to play with, and not take it seriously. I think I'm better off thinking of it that way.

Yes. This is exactly the way I think about it now.

 

[ygolo]

I believe the archetypes are more fundamental than a proscribed function-preference order or the use of dichotomies directly. The two-primary functions determine "balanced" archetypes in this system. That is why my most prefered typing scheme is Temperament and Interaction Style yeilding Archetype--if not noticing an Archetype directly.

Still, I am really conflicted about the use of archetypes.

On the one had, I believe that there are "innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge," and that it "is only possible to live the fullest life when we are in harmony with these."

On the other hand, the empericist in me wants "evidence" to back up my beliefs, and the humanist in me wants to not limit people based on stereotypes. The empercist turns the archetypes into sterotypes, and the humanist shatters them.

That's the sort of mindf*cked situation I kept finding myself. I believe, there are deep desires and an active and powerful subconcious. As far as I know, we have yet to be able to capture these in an objectively verifiable schema, and, so far, all attempts to create schema have been dehumanizing.

 

[entropie]

So if real understanding of people is a woman, then MBTI is like a sex toy

Damn you all, you people with a knack for psychology. I will stay in the darkness forever

 

[kyuuei]

Okay... Really?!

People can "What if" all damn day long. "But what if he's driving and it's cool so he's using more Se than Ti at that moment?!" I'm sorry, that didn't make any sense to me. It would still make him a Ti if throughout his life he tends to favor that side.

What if people aren't all the same? what if you can't place people into one of 16 neat little categories? ... People are always somewhat off. I'm an E that enjoys reading quietly in my room, sitting by myself for hours pondering, blah blah blah. There are exceptions to everything, and the world and people are too complex to stop at simple E's and I's, T's and F's, etc. Behavior itself is a generalization.. because people will always react differently to situations based on too many circumstances to even begin to think about and I will save my poor fried brain from attempting such.

MBTI gives a generalization into the way a person might typically think, feel, and react. I just recently learned about it through the friends I have made here, and truly it has helped. I think there is something to it, and I'm optimistic about it's use in daily life. My empathy and my ability to understand and recognize the reasons behind someone's actions have helped me a great deal, and I saw it especially through my ISTJ friend. Not to get too much into a rant, I think that MBTI was worth it even if that were the only thing it ever did for me.

It's not perfect, and no behaviorial method of classifying something a complex as the human mind will be. But it sure does help to have a calculator somtimes when you're doing math.

 

[Jeffster]

I don't think it's useless but I am kinda tired of it.

 

[Nocapszy]

Okay... Really?!

People can "What if" all damn day long. "But what if he's driving and it's cool so he's using more Se than Ti at that moment?!" I'm sorry, that didn't make any sense to me. It would still make him a Ti if throughout his life he tends to favor that side.

What if people aren't all the same? what if you can't place people into one of 16 neat little categories? ... People are always somewhat off. I'm an E that enjoys reading quietly in my room, sitting by myself for hours pondering, blah blah blah. There are exceptions to everything, and the world and people are too complex to stop at simple E's and I's, T's and F's, etc. Behavior itself is a generalization.. because people will always react differently to situations based on too many circumstances to even begin to think about and I will save my poor fried brain from attempting such.

MBTI gives a generalization into the way a person might typically think, feel, and react. I just recently learned about it through the friends I have made here, and truly it has helped. I think there is something to it, and I'm optimistic about it's use in daily life. My empathy and my ability to understand and recognize the reasons behind someone's actions have helped me a great deal, and I saw it especially through my ISTJ friend. Not to get too much into a rant, I think that MBTI was worth it even if that were the only thing it ever did for me.

It's not perfect, and no behaviorial method of classifying something a complex as the human mind will be. But it sure does help to have a calculator somtimes when you're doing math.

I strongly recommend, at least on this forum, that you read the other members' posts before flying off the handle criticizing what you assume their posts will be contain, poorly extrapolating from the titles.

 

[Eric B]

I believe the archetypes are more fundamental than a proscribed function-preference order or the use of dichotomies directly. The two-primary functions determine "balanced" archetypes in this system. That is why my most prefered typing scheme is Temperament and Interaction Style yeilding Archetype--if not noticing an Archetype directly.

That to me is the answer to questions like this. Functions can come in any order of strength, but it's the roles they play that will fit in a proscribed order and ultimately determine the type.

The free test that scored the processes by strength is gone now, but it was there to collect "data" of some sort, so let's see what comes out of that study. It could be some groundbreaking addition to the theory that would help with these best fit type questions!

 

[kyuuei]

I strongly recommend, at least on this forum, that you read the other members' posts before flying off the handle criticizing what you assume their posts will be contain, poorly extrapolating from the titles.

"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 wasn't blowing my lid off at all, but definitely not at any title of any post, my response came directly toward this statement here originally posted by the starter of the thread.

He had great points from the beginning and I was sitting back enjoying the debate when he suddenly pulled this number out of left field to me.

To say that someone might not be their type because sometimes circumstances arrise where they act like their opposite isn't justification enough to say the system doesn't work. There are percentages, and as I stated earlier people are too complex to be put into neat little boxes. My post stated simply the following: Where tf did the racecar driver come from?, you're right that people are too complex for a simple 16 digit system, but that doesn't mean MBTI isn't onto something with this or that it's nearly useless at all just because it isn't exact. People aren't exact, so the system can't be.

If I seemed angry at all I apologize? That statement threw me off entirely.

 

[redacted]

I'm not saying the system doesn't work. The system always works. But you have to modify and account for so many aspects of how four functions interact (and which direction the four functions point) that you're basically understanding the person in non-MBTI terms anyway.

If you just say "that person is an ENFP", it's true that you get SOME information from that. But how do you even know you're right about their type? If you're not, you have to work undoing assumptions you've incorrectly held. Even if you are right, how do know how Fi, Te, and Si interact with each other and dominant Ne? How do you know what their "internal standard" is? You don't have direct access to Fi or Si... You have to basically figure out their assumptions about the world from scratch anyway, even if you do know their type. Seriously, have you seen two ENFPs? Just knowing they are ENFPs doesn't really bring you much closer to understanding who they are or what they assume. Peter Griffin from Family Guy is an ENFP, for instance.

For me, at least, I have some sort of unconscious understanding of people anyway. I'm quite talented at intuitively (not in the MBTI sense) knowing how and why people think the way that they do. I don't need MBTI to help me with this. In fact, all MBTI has done for me is hinder this intuitive process.

Again, what made me realize all of this is my ENTP roomate who I thought was ENFP for the entire time I've known her. When I figured out the other day that she's actually ENTP, I realized...I don't actually know her any better. At all. It didn't change anything. I don't even use MBTI to understand people.

The only use I have for the system is verbal shortcuts. I like to use the letter 'T' instead of "conscious deductive true/false judgments". In that sense, the terms are quite useful actually.

Regarding my INJ racecar driver example. I swear to you, some people literally say things like that. It's not the generalizations that I care about even, it's the application of those generalizations.

 

[entropie]

I don't even use MBTI to understand people.

The only use I have for the system is verbal shortcuts. I like to use the letter 'T' instead of "conscious deductive true/false judgments". In that sense, the terms are quite useful actually.

Do not start bragging about, how good you understand people !

 

[htb]

If MBTI becomes no more than array of theoretical functions and dichotomies, it won't be helpful. Personalities are verifiable; alphanumeric designations, not so much. As noted above, "macro" application is usually accurate and practically useful.

 

[kyuuei]

I'm not saying the system doesn't work. The system always works. But you have to modify and account for so many aspects of how four functions interact (and which direction the four functions point) that you're basically understanding the person in non-MBTI terms anyway.

If you just say "that person is an ENFP", it's true that you get SOME information from that. But how do you even know you're right about their type? If you're not, you have to work undoing assumptions you've incorrectly held. Even if you are right, how do know how Fi, Te, and Si interact with each other and dominant Ne? How do you know what their "internal standard" is? You don't have direct access to Fi or Si... You have to basically figure out their assumptions about the world from scratch anyway, even if you do know their type. Seriously, have you seen two ENFPs? Just knowing they are ENFPs doesn't really bring you much closer to understanding who they are or what they assume. Peter Griffin from Family Guy is an ENFP, for instance.

For me, at least, I have some sort of unconscious understanding of people anyway. I'm quite talented at intuitively (not in the MBTI sense) knowing how and why people think the way that they do. I don't need MBTI to help me with this. In fact, all MBTI has done for me is hinder this intuitive process.

Again, what made me realize all of this is my ENTP roomate who I thought was ENFP for the entire time I've known her. When I figured out the other day that she's actually ENTP, I realized...I don't actually know her any better. At all. It didn't change anything. I don't even use MBTI to understand people.

The only use I have for the system is verbal shortcuts. I like to use the letter 'T' instead of "conscious deductive true/false judgments". In that sense, the terms are quite useful actually.

Regarding my INJ racecar driver example. I swear to you, some people literally say things like that. It's not the generalizations that I care about even, it's the application of those generalizations.

I totally side with Jack in saying that if it doesn't work for you, toss it and never look back! MBTI is just one way of doing things.

Lmao the racecar totally threw me off the traintrack! Talk about paper, scissors, sucker-punch-to-the-throat.

I'm optimistic about MBTI because I've had good experiences with it. In your case, it's hindered you in the way you interact with people and your normal intuition. I don't think MBTI replaces character at all.. so use what's strong for you. It wouldn't make it totally useless though.

In my case, my friend would create excuses to not hang out with the rest of us, or the general way he would think or react to something was just beyond my reach. I couldn't understand what was WRONG with this guy! When I got into this, and I realized he was my polar opposite on everything, and got to read a bit more about his personality type, saw what he had written about situations.. it clicked a little lamp on my head and I was capable of understanding more than I did before. It saved a lot of unnecessary feelings and emotions. So for me, it's the tool to use for now.

Any system will have excuses, and exceptions and rules.. but systems are tools, and if they're used the right way they're great. I do agree with you on the whole inferior bit you wrote. I think some people using MBTI will automatically think "ENFP" and forget people are capable of the other side of the spectrum just as easily. I have a friend that's a constant reminder that even though he's an 'I', he's very capable of being an extrovert as well.

 

[Ilah]

When I look at the strengths of my cognative functions, they don't really match the 16 types. I think I am more NiTi than NiTe, but Ti is not one of the valid choices for Dominate Ni. I can only choose Te or Fe and I am not so good with Fe.

This leads me to serveral questions:
How many of the people who don't think they fit one of the types [including myself] really don't fit a type and how many are misunderstanding the theory or making a mistake because they don't know themselves well?
How rare are the exceptions - the people that don't fit into one of the categories?
What percentage of exceptions can you get and still have a valid theory?

I think I may do a poll for the second question. Not sure about how to answer the others.

Ilah

 

[Uytuun]

So what if it's simply a fun system to poke around in?

To me, it has simultaneously broadened my perspective (greater understanding of the variety of perspectives/attitudes in people --> more accepting of other "types", better understanding of certain aspects of myself) and narrowed it down (typing people is addictive, but reductive - MBTI is only one framework).