User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 57

  1. #41
    Senior Member Lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    crap
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    It's odd that with all your knowledge of MBTI, you seem reluctant to use it for what it's truly great at: to understand yourself, understand your weaknesses and strenghts and to actually use this information to improve yourself instead of projecting onto others.
    I'm not trolling you, but I seriously ask: do you honestly think MBTI is great at this stuff? I think it has the potential to *help out*, but it's not going to take you all the way there. People like to forge common bonds with others, and finding personality similarities is yet another way of connecting; from what I've observed, people tend to use MBTI to elevate themselves above others, excuse shitty behaviors, and hide from their highly individualized issues. It's lonely to face your deficits and fears head-on. I see a lot of people overgeneralizing specific issues and distorting them so that they meet MBTI specs for their given "type." Sometimes, sure, you face similar problems as others with a similar personality to you. But you come with a unique history, environment, and yes, personality...too many people use MBTI as a sort of cliff notes version of humanity. It's easy and comforting that way.

    You in this post = plural.

  2. #42
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    Hmm. I'm not sure why this is such a controversial assertion for everybody to accept. To me, it makes sense: holistic evaluation > single factor evaluation. The Big Five, for example, has more scientific backing than MBTI has ever achieved. I also find the Enneagram to be extremely useful. MBTI is just one piece of the puzzle.
    Applying more than one system can be useful. However, it does not logically follow that for the purpose of one system you have to determine another, unless they are so specifically designed. The MBTI, Enneagram, and Big Five are not specifically designed in dependence of each other. If what I'm saying were not true, then it would be impossible to apply any system due to an enormous catch-22. Where would I start, if no system has validity without the support of another system?

    It's inductively helpful, it's not deductively necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    'Cuz really...do you people all believe that humanity can be broken down into 16 personality types?
    Yes, yes I do. I can break them down into 8, or 4, or 2, or even 1 category as well, and I can do all of those in many different ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    Pfft. Come on! I'd say infinite combinations exist.
    That's impossibe, if we're talking about humans beings only. But yes, it's a number of combinations so huge that to us it is effectively infinite. But you know, that I can see human beings as having an infinite number of combinations doesn't mean I can't accurately break them into 16 as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    All you see in MBTI are broad stroke trends and ball park categorization, poor test-retest validity, and non-falsifiable assertions.
    Well, with the retest validity thing, I believe most of the studies questioning it were done with the older MBTI form. MBTI form G. I'd be interested to see if tests like that were done on form M. since apparently when M was designed it was subjected to the scrutinty of professional psychometricians and supposedly addressed a number of design flaw in the older form.

    Any how, most of the reasoning you've used up to this point conflicts with the very concept of categorization. If I were to follow your argument to it's ends, I'd have to conclude that biologists shouldn't use taxanomy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    People tend to demand more specificity out of MBTI than it is reliably capable of yielding.
    I agree with you on that much.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #43
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    ...too many people use MBTI as a sort of cliff notes version of humanity.
    Unfortunately, you are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    'Cuz really...do you people all believe that humanity can be broken down into 16 personality types? Pfft. Come on! I'd say infinite combinations exist. All you see in MBTI are broad stroke trends and ball park categorization, poor test-retest validity, and non-falsifiable assertions. People tend to demand more specificity out of MBTI than it is reliably capable of yielding.
    You can break down humanity using any type of categorization you want.
    It doesn't make it true.
    The same applies to MBTI.

    From what I've seen, those who have the hardest time gaining insight into their fellow man are the ones who covet MBTI most.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    crap
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Applying more than one system can be useful. However, it does not logically follow that for the purpose of one system you have to determine another, unless they are so specifically designed. The MBTI, Enneagram, and Big Five are not specifically designed in dependence of each other. If what I'm saying were not true, then it would be impossible to apply any system due to an enormous catch-22. Where would I start, if no system has validity without the support of another system?

    It's inductively helpful, it's not deductively necessary.
    I agree that they aren't dependent on each other. What I am saying is that people tend to heap too many expectations on one system, in this case, MBTI. The same would be true if people became as fanatical about the Big Five, Enneagram, etc...however, these systems don't yield results that are as satisfying for people to take on as "identities," for a variety of reasons.


    Yes, yes I do. I can break them down into 8, or 4, or 2, or even 1 category as well, and I can do all of those in many different ways.
    Sure, you could, but how much qualitative information about any one person is that really going to yield? One's expectations about these categories have to meet reality. If they do, then that's fine.



    That's impossibe, if we're talking about humans beings only. But yes, it's a number of combinations so huge that to us it is effectively infinite. But you know, that I can see human beings as having an infinite number of combinations doesn't mean I can't accurately break them into 16 as well.
    I figured it would be a given that my use of "infinite" was a bit of hyperbole, considering that I'm just talking about human beings! Don't get tripped up by semantics.



    Well, with the retest validity thing, I believe most of the studies questioning it were done with the older MBTI form. MBTI form G. I'd be interested to see if tests like that were done on form M. since apparently when M was designed it was subjected to the scrutinty of professional psychometricians and supposedly addressed a number of design flaw in the older form.

    Any how, most of the reasoning you've used up to this point conflicts with the very concept of categorization. If I were to follow your argument to it's ends, I'd have to conclude that biologists shouldn't use taxanomy.
    I yield to your expertise on the first part.

    For the second, I'm not arguing against categorization, I'm trying to say that people should generally come to an agreement -- or at least be realistic and/or honest -- about what is being categorized and its descriptive and predictive value. That's where I see people go overboard.

  5. #45
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Yes, ma'am. I got out Jan. 29th somewhere between London time and Tokyo time. Lol.
    Thanks Puppy!

    And I thought you were just banned!

    welcome back, purrrrrrrrr!





    As for the OP, anyone who says this:

    Nah.

    Hearing a song and dancing along with it feeling the beat. That's SP behavior.

    Hearing a song and listening to the lyrics, analyzing the purpose of the song, picking at the lyrics to see if they makes sense, mocking the lyrics, etc. that's NT behavior.

    I relate to the latter.
    which you did in another thread recently, pretty much loses validity for me. Does anyone here agree with this? I was shocked to read that you have studied this stuff for, what was it? 7 years. Not only that, but you should understand that to gain respect around here, you usually (not always) have to prove yourself and that takes plain old time and posts. Many have proven themselves knowledgable regarding typology on here. If you want to be part of that, stick around and share what you know, and learn what you don't know. I think we all understand the whole typing sub forum is just plain old fun for typology freaks, not to be taken too seriously.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  6. #46
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    For the second, I'm not arguing against categorization, I'm trying to say that people should generally come to an agreement -- or at least be realistic and/or honest -- about what is being categorized and its descriptive and predictive value. That's where I see people go overboard.
    Some psychologists and philosophers today would dispute that personality or character can predict specific instances of behavior at all. Even the FFM, which is accepted as standard by personality psychologists, is found to have limited if any predictive value. And many who do think that it has descriptive value think it only does so in the aggregate, so they completely disconnect themselves from the task of predicting individual behavior in specific instances.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #47
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    And I thought you were just banned!

    welcome back, purrrrrrrrr!
    Lol. Thanks!

  8. #48
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    I agree that they aren't dependent on each other. What I am saying is that people tend to heap too many expectations on one system, in this case, MBTI. The same would be true if people became as fanatical about the Big Five, Enneagram, etc...however, these systems don't yield results that are as satisfying for people to take on as "identities," for a variety of reasons.
    I don't know, I think the Enneagram has the potential to derive that fanaticism. But yes, there are too many expectations on the system, it's not the system's fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    Sure, you could, but how much qualitative information about any one person is that really going to yield? One's expectations about these categories have to meet reality. If they do, then that's fine.
    Well then again, we are agreeing on a problem with the way the system is used, more than a fatal flaw within the system for its own purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    I figured it would be a given that my use of "infinite" was a bit of hyperbole, considering that I'm just talking about human beings! Don't get tripped up by semantics.
    But I did address more than the semantics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    I yield to your expertise on the first part.

    For the second, I'm not arguing against categorization, I'm trying to say that people should generally come to an agreement -- or at least be realistic and/or honest -- about what is being categorized and its descriptive and predictive value. That's where I see people go overboard.
    Then I agree with you. I just said in another thread that there's a serious problem created be a total lack of standards and norms. Everyone here seems to mean something entirely different when they say S or N, and they have different ideas about what the MBTI will tell them as well. Indeed the MBTI neither specifies a higher truth than other systems (it's not more "real"), nor can it be applied to all aspects of life.

    Many people don't seem to understand to understand that when they ask a question like "do ESTJs tend to drive big vehicles?" it's as logically valid as "does 6 + 5 = chicken?".

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Some psychologists and philosophers today would dispute that personality or character can predict specific instances of behavior at all. Even the FFM, which is accepted as standard by personality psychologists, is found to have limited if any predictive value. And many who do think that it has descriptive value think it only does so in the aggregate, so they completely disconnect themselves from the task of predicting individual behavior in specific instances.
    Yes, there are many contraversise concerning psychometrics in entirety. There are at least problems with the more validated psychometric systems than there are/would be with the MBTI, though. As long as we are focusing on specific, fringe personality type systems like MBTI or Enneagram, we might as well aim for the humble goal of brining them into the realm of conventional acceptability before we take on the task of questioning the entire convention of personality type.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #49

    Default

    I'm not great at this typing others thing yet, but I think if I was going to be then the best way would be to know a large number of people of each type in real life and have their type verified rather than guessing. This would help me to instinctively see which things made each type different and which things have nothing to do with type or are in multiple types. I don't believe in getting there with theory only.
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  10. #50
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Why the hell is super yellow?
    If you are interested in language, words, linguistics, or foreign languages, check out my blog and read, post, and/or share.

Similar Threads

  1. What type of music do you listen to and what makes a good song?
    By Mychemicalkilljoy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-15-2015, 08:49 PM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-08-2014, 12:44 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-20-2010, 06:52 AM
  4. what makes someone perceptive about others?
    By velocity in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 12:59 AM
  5. What makes someone likable?
    By proteanmix in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 01-08-2009, 02:45 AM

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