What type is House?

[ptgatsby]

I was under the impression that they were exactly the same, but that MBTI was just used as an INDICATOR of what functions you MIGHT use.

Yup... as I have said many times already - MBTI is a method of finding out which functions you use.

 

[Nonpareil]

Perhaps only because you haven't gathered enough information.

Fair enough, you can say that, but the same could be said to you or anyone else. I was an extremely oppressed child, I didn't play well with other kids and I observed many behaviours as a child. In social gatherings, I would talk to adults as opposed to play with children. I try to understand why people think and act the way they do. I base my information from what I observe and from the stories I exchanged with people over time. Why would some people become psychopaths from trama an others don't? Why would someone who seems normal be clinically depressed and suffers from mental instability? I've worked with the sick, the unfortunate, the abused and the mentally ill, your functions cannot explain their behaviours but yet everyone has a personality type.

It's not intended to inform children anyway. It's supposed to be as accurate as possible, which means most likely that most adults will never even get it.

I'm comparing the thought process to children because they are overall far more objective than adults. It is what makes them naive. They see things as it is while most adults see things through eyes where it is based on their knowledge and experience. A child wouldn't understand the functions you are talking about because it really doen't make any sense in describing people. I'm not saying tha mbti is that much better, but at least it describes it in a way people can see and relate to.

 

[Nocapszy]

*sigh* They are tested independently because they could not be reliably tested together. I've said this many times so far. MBTI evolved the way it did for a reason.

Yes, you have said it many times. But you haven't explained it once. Hmm.... but I have given justification... Hmm... Do you actually have a point? Or are you just reading from a website?

No, they aren't. The whole point of the factor analysis was to determine that the 4 traits being measured were unique data points. Just as every question on the official test is measured to ensure that it is distinct enough that, in combination with other questions, it is indicative of that particular trait.

The fact that they affect each other proves incontrovertibly that they're not unique. Besides, the argument at the end of my blade wasn't one questioning whether or not the points were unique, but actually that even if they were unique, but that ALL FOUR DICHOTOMIES have a different meaning for each type. The J of an ENTJ means something entirely different from that of an ENFJ. Before you dispute anything else, I want you to prove conclusively that the sentence I just said is untrue, since that is after all the crux of my point.

Ah well, be sure to let the researchers know... they must of overlooked this for the last 60 years...

Are you really that impressed by prestige and established accreditation? I realize these things are necessary in a few realms, but what I'm trying to point out to you is that those researchers are using statistics which do not inject causation. I'm saying that whoever deemed the test worthy may have been wrong. I'm not saying that the measure they used to decide of the test worked or not was faulty, but I am saying that the results don't prove conclusively that MBTI works.

Yah, cause that wasn't tried...

It was tried, but it was tried afterward, and didn't gain the same popularity. It doesn't mean it's any less reliable.

Oh, it makes sense... but only when you are actually forced to validate your system against real people.

Course, all of this is just because MBTI still uses functional theories. If it wasn't for MBTI, there would likely be no functional theory left and we'd all likely be using versions of NEO, MMPI or DSMs. The work CPP/CAPT put into MBTI (and other instruments they own) is about the only validation it has.

You've got it backwards.

 

[redacted]

basically, you cant test for T vs. F, then test for J vs. P, and then determine if T or F is introverted or extroverted.

example questions:

"Determine success by measurement or other objective method such as the time taken."
1) yes
2) no

say a T would answer 1, okay?

"You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed"
1) yes
2) no

say a J would answer 2

so the person got points for xxTJ, right? that means they get points for Te, right? but if the person answered the second question 1, they'd get points for xxTP, which means they'd get points for Ti, yes?

but the first question is a Ti question, not a Te one. that means that one out of two people will be scored incorrectly.

maybe those weren't the best example questions, but you see my point i hope.

 

[redacted]

Fair enough, you can say that, but the same could be said to you or anyone else. I was an extremely oppressed child, I didn't play well with other kids and I observed many behaviours as a child. In social gatherings, I would talk to adults as opposed to play with children. I try to understand why people think and act the way they do. I base my information from what I observe and from the stories I exchanged with people over time. Why would some people become psychopaths from trama an others don't? Why would someone who seems normal be clinically depressed and suffers from mental instability? I've worked with the sick, the unfortunate, the abused and the mentally ill, your functions cannot explain their behaviours but yet everyone has a personality type.



I'm comparing the thought process to children because they are overall far more objective than adults. It is what makes them naive. They see things as it is while most adults see things through eyes where it is based on their knowledge and experience. A child wouldn't understand the functions you are talking about because it really doen't make any sense in describing people. I'm not saying tha mbti is that much better, but at least it describes it in a way people can see and relate to.

sure you're INTJ?

 

[Nocapszy]

Yup... as I have said many times already - MBTI is a method of finding out which functions you use.

Okay, you're obviously not getting it.

Imagine a ruler (if you can). You use it to measure inches. Now imagine a meter stick. Obviously it measure meters. Centimeters are the closest unit to inches, but they're not really the same. There has to be some conversion done to get the accurate answer. That's basically what MBTI requires of itself. Since it doesn't calculate (it's a test, not a machine or a human) it would have to make sure that the things it measures line up in a way such that both measuring sticks line up. MBTI doesn't do this with its questions though.

It's too black and white.

 

[Nocapszy]

basically, you cant test for T vs. F, then test for J vs. P, and then determine if T or F is introverted or extroverted.

example questions:

"Determine success by measurement or other objective method such as the time taken."
1) yes
2) no

say a T would answer 1, okay?

"You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed"
1) yes
2) no

say a J would answer 2

so the person got points for xxTJ, right? that means they get points for Te, right? but if the person answered the second question 1, they'd get points for xxTP, which means they'd get points for Ti, yes?

but the first question is a Ti question, not a Te one. that means that one out of two people will be scored incorrectly.

maybe those weren't the best example questions, but you see my point i hope.

Actually it's a Te question and not a Ti one, but the point stands outside of typos.

 

[Nonpareil]

basically, you cant test for T vs. F, then test for J vs. P, and then determine if T or F is introverted or extroverted.

example questions:

"Determine success by measurement or other objective method such as the time taken."
1) yes
2) no

say a T would answer 1, okay?

"You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed"
1) yes
2) no

say a J would answer 2

so the person got points for xxTJ, right? that means they get points for Te, right? but if the person answered the second question 1, they'd get points for xxTP, which means they'd get points for Ti, yes?

but the first question is a Ti question, not a Te one. that means that one out of two people will be scored incorrectly.

maybe those weren't the best example questions, but you see my point i hope.

No, I don't see your point. Whoever said that test were the way to type people. You are using functions. I am using - tried, tested and true behaviours related to the mbti traits. To me, functions doesn't prove anything. Whether someone shows a particular function or not does not mean he/she is better at something than someone else. You say you are Ni + Fe, so you understand people better. I beg to disagree. You may prefer these functions but it doesn't mean you are better that someone who is Ne + Fi. Functions can't explain why people do/think/act a certain way and so it can not be used to generalize what type a person is. You are simplifying a person's cognitive ability too much and identifying too much with your functions. People just aren't that simple!

 

[Nonpareil]

sure you're INTJ?

Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, I'm very sure I'm INTJ - tested and true.

You are judging me based on my said behaviour and applying a function to the behaviour. You do not know me, you definately do not know how and why my mind works the way it does. Functions will not tell you what type I am. Seeing me in actions, learning about my past, present and future and understanding what really goes on in that twisted little head of mine is what makes me who I am.

Curious though, what functions would you give me and why are you questioning why I'm not an INTJ?

 

[redacted]

"Whether someone shows a particular function or not does not mean he/she is better at something than someone else. You say you are Ni + Fe, so you understand people better. I beg to disagree. You may prefer these functions but it doesn't mean you are better that someone who is Ne + Fi. Functions can't explain why people do/think/act a certain way and so it can not be used to generalize what type a person is."

actually, you're just blatantly wrong there.

the whole point of functions is to show strengths of cognitive abilities.

and, plus, you're USING DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of these functions which i've said about 10 times already, so you're not actually disagreeing with me, you're just misapplying what i'm saying.

 

[Nocapszy]

No, I don't see your point. Whoever said that test were the way to type people. You are using functions. I am using - tried, tested and true behaviours related to the mbti traits. To me, functions doesn't prove anything.

If you understood what they meant/did then you would.

Whether someone shows a particular function or not does not mean he/she is better at something than someone else.

Who said they did?

You say you are Ni + Fe, so you understand people better. I beg to disagree.

LOL

You may prefer these functions but it doesn't mean you are better that someone who is Ne + Fi.

No, but it does mean that BECAUSE he favors those functions, he is more likely to put effort into the activities they cause, I.E. figuring people out.

Functions can't explain why people do/think/act a certain way

Actually, that's exactly what they do - explain behavior. THey don't claim responsibility, they just describe it

and so it can not be used to generalize what type a person is.

Again, if you knew what they were, meant and did, you wouldn't be saying that.

You are simplifying a person's cognitive ability too much and identifying too much with your functions. People just aren't that simple!

To him they are. Believe me, I know.

 

[ptgatsby]

...

I love pissing contests and all but this isn't even interesting to me... This is stuff I learnt 10 years ago, stuff that is widely available... no need to access to a research library, or CAPTs library... just need to take the time to read it. Nothing I have said here is "debatable" - this is the history of the system and the analysis done on it. If we were at least talking about that, I'd be able to take something away... and I'd likely be attacking MBTI, which is far more interesting than defending it since I can draw on research to compare apples to apples.

/me runs back to my courses before getting sucked in again

 

[redacted]

Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, I'm very sure I'm INTJ - tested and true.

You are judging me based on my said behaviour and applying a function to the behaviour. You do not know me, you definately do not know how and why my mind works the way it does. Functions will not tell you what type I am. Seeing me in actions, learning about my past, present and future and understanding what really goes on in that twisted little head of mine is what makes me who I am.

Curious though, what functions would you give me and why are you questioning why I'm not an INTJ?

"I base my information from what I observe and from the stories I exchanged with people over time."

= Si

edit: that's not amazing evidence. but you seem very Si to me, citing things you've read; thinking of the past as a great authority, etc.

 

[redacted]

Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, I'm very sure I'm INTJ - tested and true.

You are judging me based on my said behaviour and applying a function to the behaviour. You do not know me, you definately do not know how and why my mind works the way it does. Functions will not tell you what type I am. Seeing me in actions, learning about my past, present and future and understanding what really goes on in that twisted little head of mine is what makes me who I am.

Curious though, what functions would you give me and why are you questioning why I'm not an INTJ?

also, you can't see my perspective, which is very very very strong evidence that you aren't Ni dominant.

 

[Nocapszy]

Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, I'm very sure I'm INTJ - tested and true.

You are judging me based on my said behaviour and applying a function to the behaviour. You do not know me, you definately do not know how and why my mind works the way it does. Functions will not tell you what type I am. Seeing me in actions, learning about my past, present and future and understanding what really goes on in that twisted little head of mine is what makes me who I am.

Curious though, what functions would you give me and why are you questioning why I'm not an INTJ?

The fact that you came onto the scene to defend your friend (or even if you didn't even know pt.) Is indicative of a feeling function. The fact that it was pt in particular who you were defending, implies that it was object Fe. I have no comment on your perception mode, but you appear to me to be an I_FJ.

 

[redacted]

Nothing I have said here is "debatable" - this is the history of the system and the analysis done on it.

stop making value judgments and we'll stop debating.

 

[Nocapszy]

I love pissing contests and all but this isn't even interesting to me... This is stuff I learnt 10 years ago, stuff that is widely available... no need to access to a research library, or CAPTs library... just need to take the time to read it. Nothing I have said here is "debatable" - this is the history of the system and the analysis done on it. If we were at least talking about that, I'd be able to take something away... and I'd likely be attacking MBTI, which is far more interesting than defending it since I can draw on research to compare apples to apples.

/me runs back to my courses before getting sucked in again

I just can't understand this. How can someone be so blind? If you have an abstract system that rests upon another abstract system, but doesn't follow the logic, then how is it valid? That's the real question. You can talk ALL you want about researchers and history, but in the end what really matters is how the damn thing works. MBTI just doesn't work with the function theory. It allows for there to be confusion of function. I've seen it happen. There's some concrete info for you. Prove that wrong. I've goddamn seen it. And since it's teetering on the functions system, (otherwise it has really no base), but doesn't follow the rules, then it is indubitably flawed.

It might be correct very often, but there's still margin for error.

 

[ptgatsby]

The fact that you came onto the scene to defend your friend (or even if you didn't even know pt.) Is indicative of a feeling function. The fact that it was pt in particular who you were defending, implies that it was object Fe. I have no comment on your perception mode, but you appear to me to be an I_FJ.

Fiance, just in case you don't read our signatures.

 

[ptgatsby]

I just can't understand this. How can someone be so blind? If you have an abstract system that rests upon another abstract system, but doesn't follow the logic, then how is it valid? That's the real question. You can talk ALL you want about researchers and history, but in the end what really matters is how the damn thing works. MBTI just doesn't work with the function theory. It allows for there to be confusion of function. I've seen it happen. There's some concrete info for you. Prove that wrong. I've goddamn seen it. And since it's teetering on the functions system, (otherwise it has really no base), but doesn't follow the rules, then it is indubitably flawed.

It might be correct very often, but there's still margin for error.

Actually, I have no clue what you are saying anymore.

What system are you using to determine what functions someone has?

 

[Nocapszy]

Actually, I have no clue what you are saying anymore.

What system are you using to determine what functions someone has?

Well, I did some research of the functions themselves, and analyzed... spent hours a day for almost two years, wondering exactly what each function did, and why it did that. It's embedded into my brain. There's no MATH involved in my system and if you want, you can discredit it as a system. I've just become adroit at determining which function is being used, and what it's pairing with. There are seemingly insignificant nuances of behavior, that I wouldn't pay attention to otherwise, which give way to the ability to name the function someone used to come up with a conclusion or why they acted a certain way.