[Ni] MBTI must be destroyed.

[Jaguar]

White genocide and MBTI destruction. What a day.

 

[Mole]

We know how easy it is to deceive ourselves, and as a result we have developed the scientific method so we won't be deceived.

The scientific method has never been applied to mbti and so mbti continues to deceive its followers.

Mbti is based on wish fulfilment and confirmation bias, it uses the same psychological techniques as astrology to deceive its followers. But most of all the followers want to be deceived, they want their wishes to come true. If wishes were fishes we'd walk on the sea. If wishes were fishes we'd all fly free.

 

[Aouli]

I've stopped seeing MBTI as the final answer and started seeing it as more of a brainstorming project.

 

[indra]

May as well blow everyone's brain out, complaining about those things

 

[virtualinsanity]

" If that "racist" charge comes from the article I suspect it does, you should be ashamed of yourself for passing that garbage along. What's your source?"


Don't type to me as if I'm a child. If you must educate, then do just that. Get to the point and stick to the information at hand, instead of beating around the bush with a bunch of irrelevant and condescending remarks that have nothing to do with what I said.

Uncovering The Secret History Of Myers-Briggs - Digg

Isabel Briggs Myers Co-created the Famed Personality Test. But Who Was She?

Incredible Things You Never Knew About the Myers-Briggs Test | Inc.com

Murder Yet to Come: Isabel Briggs Myers: 9780935652222: Amazon.com: Books <-- Here are the sources.

With that said, I read your posts and then some. I appreciate them. I was able to see certain things from a newer perspective. The perspective that still stands is the racist one. I'm going to need that debunked.

Something I do agree with is that the dichotomies are pretty flexible and realistic. I think the functions vs the dichotomy is up to individuals to decide. Depending on the angle, the dichotomies can look like "blanketed" or shallow descriptions of people. Some people think differentiating the kind of N is important in order to understand themselves on a deeper level. Others will see the functions as a waste of time because "N is N" and "S is "S." I think both have the ability to be correct, now.. depending on the person. Although you made it clear in a few of your posts that Jung spent more time describing the overall dichotomies instead of the functions, he still described the functions, nevertheless. The way he described them in his book was misleading if he meant to place both T, F, N, and S together. I think he should have described one part of the function after another for clarity.


Responding to what others have said about it being silly to argue over -- I agree 100%. I think too many people get so serious about typing others and claiming others are a mistype. I've typed myself a billion things because I'm on a constant road of self discovery, which I believe this tool should be used for, anyways. So, I've no issues saying I mistyped myself. Yet, I don't turn it into this big thing. I value learning and I am always learning and wish others would do the same.. but you can't beat a dead horse.

I wrote a thread on here called, "Rip My Theory To Shreds" and I feel as though I'm back where I started. If you have a great Ni but a poorly developed Ne, and great Si + Se, you are simply a Sensor, no matter how high on the stack you think your Ni is. Is this correct thinking?

In this case, one could be an ESTP with amazing Ni. (The function Ni becomes irrelevant because your Ne is your 8th function.) However the S would be more prominent.

In this light, the Si+Se simply translates into S. You are just a Sensor. This is what my sister was debating me about the other day. It makes sense.

I think the stereotypes, MBTI prejudice, and limiting perspectives cause people to turn their noses up at this stuff, as well.

"ESTPs are assholes. ESTPs can't be intuitive. ESTPs are into sports. ESTPs blah blah blah."

Stuff like that ruins the entire thing. I do agree that this process should be enjoyable but at the same time, sometimes, self discovery can be an ugly thing. Once you get in this stuff, it is hard to get out. I'll say that.

 

[reckful]

Uncovering The Secret History Of Myers-Briggs - Digg

Isabel Briggs Myers Co-created the Famed Personality Test. But Who Was She?

Incredible Things You Never Knew About the Myers-Briggs Test | Inc.com

Murder Yet to Come: Isabel Briggs Myers: 9780935652222: Amazon.com: Books <-- Here are the sources. ...

The perspective that still stands is the racist one. I'm going to need that debunked.

That Digg article with the racist charge is a disgrace. Prior to developing the MBTI, Myers wrote two mystery novels, both set at a time when it was quite common for white Americans — and especially southern white Americans — to hold various kinds of racist views. The second novel involved the investigation of a murder, and it turned out [*SPOILER ALERT*] that the suspected murder wasn't a murder at all, but rather a suicide by a semi-bonkers family of racists who were gradually killing themselves off by suicide because they thought they'd discovered that one of their ancestors had been black, so they were irredeemably tainted.

The author of the Digg article (Merve Emre), who ended up being denied access to the MBTI archives and clearly had it in for Myers, pointed to that novel and said, oho, look at those racist characters, obviously Myers was a racist.

As you may know, the two standard publishing-industry sources of reviews of books before they're published (often used by libraries) have long been Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. Here's the latter's review of Give Me Death (October 11, 1934):

The dramatist Jerningham tries to prove that his old friend has been murdered, though all clues lead to suicide. New York background. Good reading.​

And here's a positive review of the book (from 2012) by Curtis Evans, a contemporary author of several books about mystery fiction. He explains that "Give Me Death has exceptional virtues — as well as one notable failing, I would say, at least for modern readers."

And as you'll see if you follow the link, the "notable failing" for a "modern reader" isn't that the author's perspective is racist, but rather [**SPOILER ALERT**] that the racist views of the suicide-prone southern family are so "ludicrously over-the-top" and "histrionic" that "one would have to be forgiven for thinking a better title for the novel might have been Too Stupid to Live."

And so I'm not misunderstood, I'm not suggesting that Myers' intent was for that family to seem as comically unrealistic as they do today, and obviously the racist attitudes of that family weren't nearly as unusual among southern whites in the early 30's as they (hopefully) are today. But on the other hand, it was certainly an extremely unusual family — even for its time — in reacting to the (supposed) black ancestry in the over-the-top way they did, and it doesn't speak well for Emre that she's willing to imply that Myers was somehow holding that family up as spokespeople for Myers' own views on race.

And the only other "evidence" Emre points to in support of her "racist" charge is a letter where Myers noted that a white office worker's attitudes toward a black woman may have been influenced by the white woman's unconscious side (from a typological perspective) because it was "standard" (this was typical Jungian-based analysis) for the "suppressed and considered-inferior part of one's own psyche" to end up being projected onto "a dark and supposedly inferior race."

A "supposedly" inferior race, virtualinsanity. Myers used the word "supposedly," and Emre held up that letter to support her racist charge.

Oh, but wait. Even Emre seems to have understood that what Myers said in that letter didn't necessarily reflect a notably racist perspective on Myers' part. Emre asks, "Was Isabel a casual racist or a mere cultural observer, unwittingly invoking the language of her time to debate issues of identity? Are these two ways of thinking and talking about race even separable from one another?"

Yeah, good questions, Ms. Emre. And if you're going to be slinging "racist" charges, maybe you should have more solid evidence than that to point to.

And your second and third sources are just articles that mention the charge in the Digg article.

Isabel Myers was born in 1897, and it's probably fair to say that the majority of white Americans of her generation had perspectives on blacks that included one or more aspects — whether with respect to legal rights, or average intelligence, or personality characteristics — that would (rightly) be considered racist by modern standards, and I'm not claiming that I have any strong reason to think that Myers was a particularly unusual figure in terms of the degree to which her perspective on blacks was utterly free of any racist (by modern standards) taint.

But if there's any solid evidence that Myers held notably racist views — either for her time, or by modern standards, for that matter — Emre doesn't appear to have found it.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

If you want to destroy it then simply forget that it exists.

(Well everyone else will have to forget too)...

 

[Agent Washington]

[MENTION=31909]agentwashington[/MENTION] - Don't worry about ruffling feathers. There is nothing wrong with having threads that are strictly for debating the accuracy of MBTI or any other typing system. Otherwise, this whole forum is just a joke. Actually, without critical thinking, it's basically a cult.

I have been having some internal struggle with grasping and fully accepting MBTI lately. I need to get my hands on some actual books and dive in deeper. The problem for me is that I can't use MBTI solely to explain myself. There are holes and inconsistencies that can only be "explained" by consideration of other typing systems used as supplementation. For example, I am almost certain that I use nearly equal part Fe and Fi, however, I don't often use Te, or at least in comparison to Ti, it's barely noticeable. MBTI has no explanation for this other than I'm "not healthy." Well... you know what I have to say to that? Fuck that. I have stood up multiple times with little regard for consequences or affecting the "mood" of a room, to the point where I probably seem like a major bitch at times. I have put my job on the line to voice my inner moral compass. I have gotten out of my car to address self-centered asshole drivers (three times now, and not in psycho road rage ways but more like "um, excuse me... no... you can't do that shit you asshole"). I recently was upset when my landlord group texted everyone in my building, thereby revealing my phone number to all of my neighbors, so I texted him a rather straightforward response informing him that he was out of line in doing such and that he needed to respect my privacy. How is any of that Fe? If you can tell me, then perhaps I will understand the differences between Fe and Fi better, but for now, I feel like I often sacrifice harmony for voicing my opinions. With that said, it is also obvious that I Fe all over the fricken place, or so I'm told at least.

For your consideration, here is the text I sent my landlord:

"You do realize that you just violated our individual privacy by group messaging us, don't you? Private would have been more professional (not even sure this is legal). Please respect my privacy and rights from here on out."

I know several INFJs irl, and I can't see any of them (maaaaybe one...) asserting their landlord or bosses like I have in the past. Rather, I see them sort of just dealing with it and letting things go. Now, for the mean time, I have explained this away through my enneagram, as I am double-reactive, and actually, I can see e1s being reactive too because of their strong moral code and judgy nature. Furthermore, being Sx/So could potentially make me more assertive. Point is, I can't explain myself with just MBTI.

I have considered the fact that perhaps I am an INFP, but that just doesn't seem to line up when I look at the other functions, and I also consistently test as INFJ, regardless, for several years now. I think maybe it's time to dive deeper into socionics and see what I find there.

If I am still not grasping exactly what Fi is, feel free to school me.

I really do agree, though; my first internal consistency check is the lack of supporting evidence, intra-theory, as to why the functions had to appear in certain stacks. The functions, too, don't necessarily have anything to do with the dichotomies. Then, proofing it against theories that are better behavioural predictors like the Big Five...

... I'm not sure i have anything else of value to add; brain fog.

 

[WatchlessThyme]

Why? I like it. It's nice.

 

[Forever]

Wrk tht sht

 

[existence]

Well there's many issues here. First, Jung's typology is kind of speculative and unfinished ideas. I don't think he fully justified his ideas. The MBTI itself was kind of a move to implement Jung's ideas in a more empirically validated form, but in some sense it proceeded too akin to mainstream personality psychology and thus wound up being a different beast from Jung...where people pawn off the idea that this common functions theory you hear of (like ENTP being Ne+Ti+Fe+Si) is just straightforwardly valid, when it's one of many models out there, highly controversial, and devastatingly far from empirically tested. So I kind of scoff when people out there try to pretend as if they're doing MBTI the "Right" way, because they're going by what the "official theory" really says. In reality this is a highly speculative ongoing interpretive enterprise.

That NeTiFeSi function model thingy was never empirically tested much, let alone verified by Myers/MBTI people. Only the four dichotomies. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, it's the four dichotomies (the four "letters") that's straightforwardly valid. That's what the "official theory" says. The rest (the functions stuff, let alone the specific function model with the NeTiFeSi) doesn't get much focus officially. The closely affiliated MBTI authors do focus on the dominant/inferior function along with some sort of auxiliary, describing observations and creating profiles and loose function descriptions out of the observations and that's where it stops as far as I've seen. Same with the official MBTI site.

 

[existence]

Secondly, did Jung ever say his book and insights were unfinished ideas?

I agree with a lot in your post but... yeah, Jung's stuff is an unfinished theory. Not gospel

This is news to me. Do you have a respectable source you can point us to?

Parlor game?

FYI, Carl Jung (mystical streak notwithstanding) was a believer in the scientific approach, and Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality.

The MBTI actually represents a major advance — in multiple respects — beyond Jung's original categories and framework.

I don't really see it as a major advance, just a different system.

If you're interested, your reprogramming could begin with this post and the posts it links to.

Reprogramming?

 

[Mole]

'The Good German'

'A Good German' overlooks the bad while denying personal moral responsibility by appeal in his submission to legitimate authority.

The American CIA agents who relied on the White House legal justification of torture were nothing more than 'Good Germans'.

And most of us are 'Good Germans' here as we overlook the fake personality test called mbti.

Various techniques are used, such as saying it is all a joke, and then we go deeper and claim mbti will help us understand ourselves and each other - thank God we say, we have discovered mbti, and the sophisticated add, and thank God mbti discovered me.

In reality mbti preys on the vulnerable, those who are unhappy and are trying to understand why they are unhappy, and mbti give us a jargon to repeat over and over hypnotising us into believing we have discovered the meaning of life, when all we have discovered is another way to manipulate ourselves and how to manipulate others. And for those desperately unhappy, that is enough.

 

[GavinElster]

So, it's the four dichotomies (the four "letters") that's straightforwardly valid. That's what the "official theory" says.

Well, both Myers' Gifts Differing and this site The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Understanding MBTI(R) Type Dynamics

state things like

Type is more than just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first. This is called type dynamics, and it is an important part of understanding your MBTI® results. Below are some basic facts about type dynamics.
One preference has the most influence on you. This is called the dominant function.
The next strongest preference is called the auxiliary function. It is important because it serves to support and balance the dominant.
The third strongest is the tertiary function.
One preference is the least strong. This is the fourth function, often called the inferior function.
There is one preference each person tends to show first to the outside world.
The eight function-attitudes are expressed very differently in the inner world and the outer world.
The middle two preferences are called the function pair.
Over the course of your life, different preferences may emerge and be used more often, as well as more easily. This is referred to as type development.

Basically, it seems to me that, while you're right what WAS actually verified is the dichotomies, or more precisely, the dimensions (there aren't true dichotomies as far as we can tell), unfortunately it seems very hard to find sources that are completely divorced from Myers' original prescription. That she actually took the trouble to say that P/J tells you whether you "use Ji or Pi"/"use Je or Pe" -- that is, actually build her own theoretical assumptions about functions theory into her interpretation of the dichotomies, suggests to me that the problem is very deeprooted. If she simply offered some mention of Jungian ideas just to acknowledge those roots, OK, but I find it a little hard to believe that she'd argue for her version of the theory to be correct if she didn't take functions seriously. Still, I guess I can take the possibility as not being entirely ruled out, as I don't know her innermost thoughts.

That isn't to say we can't take this with a grain of salt and acknowledge that the type dynamics stuff is more a matter of "you can give meaning to it in certain ways" than "it's straightforwardly inferred from the data." Some people seem to prefer to just use the dichotomies by themselves, which is fine. I don't know of any reasonable way to say that this is the "official position" though personally, though I'm open to hearing of such.
What I can say about the Jungian types and other such ideas is that you DO see these patterns in various places, just that they aren't what I'd call the "typical" patterns. The dichotomies/Big 5 seem to offer the typical much more clearly, and in a way that isn't so surprising, because the more exotic patterns you see aren't what you'd even expect to be the typical case.

 

[Mole]

I agree with a lot in your post but... yeah, Jung's stuff is an unfinished theory. Not gospel

Carl Jung himself wrote that his book Psychological Types is base on no empirical evidence.

To read Carl Jung's Psychological Types click on http://www.cyjack.com/cognition/(ebook pdf) jung, carl - the psychological types.pdf

 

[existence]

And most of us are 'Good Germans' here as we overlook the fake personality test called mbti.

Various techniques are used, such as saying it is all a joke, and then we go deeper and claim mbti will help us understand ourselves and each other - thank God we say, we have discovered mbti, and the sophisticated add, and thank God mbti discovered me.

In reality mbti preys on the vulnerable, those who are unhappy and are trying to understand why they are unhappy, and mbti give us a jargon to repeat over and over hypnotising us into believing we have discovered the meaning of life, when all we have discovered is another way to manipulate ourselves and how to manipulate others. And for those desperately unhappy, that is enough.

Umm, if someone uses MBTI in this way, that's not the theory's fault, they just have some psychological issue they have to sort out. Say, by going for therapy with a good therapist, if they can't do it alone.

Well, both Myers' Gifts Differing and this site The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Understanding MBTI(R) Type Dynamics

state things like

(...)

Over the course of your life, different preferences may emerge and be used more often, as well as more easily. This is referred to as type development.

The last statement you quoted kinda does away with the strict model of NeTiFeSi. This is one of the things I've seen as pretty "loose" as described in my earlier post about how functions are discussed by MBTI authors.

Basically, it seems to me that, while you're right what WAS actually verified is the dichotomies, or more precisely, the dimensions (there aren't true dichotomies as far as we can tell), unfortunately it seems very hard to find sources that are completely divorced from Myers' original prescription. That she actually took the trouble to say that P/J tells you whether you "use Ji or Pi"/"use Je or Pe" -- that is, actually build her own theoretical assumptions about functions theory into her interpretation of the dichotomies, suggests to me that the problem is very deeprooted. If she simply offered some mention of Jungian ideas just to acknowledge those roots, OK, but I find it a little hard to believe that she'd argue for her version of the theory to be correct if she didn't take functions seriously. Still, I guess I can take the possibility as not being entirely ruled out, as I don't know her innermost thoughts.

That isn't to say we can't take this with a grain of salt and acknowledge that the type dynamics stuff is more a matter of "you can give meaning to it in certain ways" than "it's straightforwardly inferred from the data." Some people seem to prefer to just use the dichotomies by themselves, which is fine. I don't know of any reasonable way to say that this is the "official position" though personally, though I'm open to hearing of such.
What I can say about the Jungian types and other such ideas is that you DO see these patterns in various places, just that they aren't what I'd call the "typical" patterns. The dichotomies/Big 5 seem to offer the typical much more clearly, and in a way that isn't so surprising, because the more exotic patterns you see aren't what you'd even expect to be the typical case.

I would agree with your way of putting how it's a matter of "you can give meaning to it in certain ways". It is definitely a little confusing as to how Myers' tried to integrate these jungian functions and yet left that part of the work unfinished while she did include some parts of it in the theory. Probably simply because it couldn't be verified empirically.

 

[GavinElster]

The last statement you quoted kinda does away with the strict model of NeTiFeSi.

Well sure, I certainly don't subscribe to the idea of it being strictly true in some empirical sense, more like "I can define what I mean by the pattern and it carries some descriptive value".... and for what it's worth, even Myers only really decided the first two/fourth with much finality, to my understanding, and the third one being the same attitude as dominant is another development.

But basically, one can't be optimistic about the MBTI foundation itself: I suspected that they're just talking of becoming more comfortable than before with your third/fourth functions, not with genuinely "changing type patterns" ... and if you follow their own link to the type development page, they say this

As you develop your tertiary and least-preferred functions later in life, the range of behaviors available to you opens up even further. But the dominant and auxiliary functions will always be the core functions of your conscious personality.

 

[Psyclepath]

Yes.

Let us be ridden of this curse.

Let us set flames to the shadowed spires of MBTI. Let us bring justice, let people be known for who they are, not by their farcical four-letter codes! We must never be oppressed by such tyrannical ideals!

(P.S. It's half 4 in the morning and I'm in no state of mind to say anything intelligent)

 

[existence]

Well sure, I certainly don't subscribe to the idea of it being strictly true in some empirical sense, more like "I can define what I mean by the pattern and it carries some descriptive value".... and for what it's worth, even Myers only really decided the first two/fourth with much finality, to my understanding, and the third one being the same attitude as dominant is another development.

Yes I mentioned this earlier, with the MBTI authors going mainly by this vague rudimentary draft.

But basically, one can't be optimistic about the MBTI foundation itself: I suspected that they're just talking of becoming more comfortable than before with your third/fourth functions, not with genuinely "changing type patterns" ... and if you follow their own link to the type development page, they say this

Err, optimistic?

 

[GavinElster]

Meaning, I don't think one can (with the additional stuff I quoted) still envision that the MBTI foundation meant something so flexible as saying the functions stackings stuff is just a rough guideline, rather than rigidly in place.