I just have this compulsive need to post part of the conversation between me and doob:
“Counseling” is nothing more than a bunch of mumble jumble stuff that is suppose to make someone feel better even if that means contradicting reality. To make a long story short, it is just a form of mind control.
So in other words, clients or patients are being lied to just so they could continue on with life without being a threat to themselves or to society as a whole.
Some people wake up to this reality and may experience cognitive dissonance resulting in either positive or negative outcomes depending on the circumstances (every case is different) and that too could be another very long rant, I think. It is simply just the “law of cause and effect” occurring consciously, subconsciously, and unconsciously. And for some, it would only further validate (for them) that freewill either doesn’t exist or that it is an illusion.
In addition, I suspect there is some correlation between counseling psychology and clinical psychology. Even psychotherapy in general could be a pseudoscience. So to make a long story short, I think anything that has to do with “counseling” including social workers or licensed clinical social workers for example, aren’t really science.
True science requires a substantial amount of evidence. Social psychology, experimental psychology, and even evolutionary psychology have all done this well, I think, in my opinion. I mean for example, who could dispute against “pupil dilation?” It’s like to trying to argue against DNA but maybe that is a bad analogy.
Those branches only further validate certain elements of the academic branch of philosophy. Cognitive psychology is another one. In fact, as I have stated before, I believe the branch of cognitive psychology to be the most difficult branch out of all the branches in psychology. Social psychology is a bit intuitive but still important because it reflects the “concrete tone” of a hard science or “true” science.
I took Human Resource Management a long time ago for my undergraduate but at the same time (being the curious person I am) saw the textbook for graduate students when I was at the college bookstore.
Neurodegeneration was just a lecture I saw on Youtube because I was previously interested in Dr. Robert Sapolsky's other videos. Hate to say it but he really did an excellent job of teaching me or getting me to understand things a bit better. But I guess part of it has to do with me already having studied some of it to a certain extent (so clearly, I already had a foundation and hearing the lecture from the viewpoint of someone else made it better sticking it into my memory). In fact, Dr. Sapolsky is probably one of the best teachers I have ever seen alongside Dr. Kelly McGonigal also from Standford University. McGonigal is obviously a little bit strange because she appears to be more of health psychology or even counseling psychology.
To me, not only do I consider MBTI to be a pseudoscience but I also consider the branch of counseling psychology to be one too. Both of those branches are far from "true science", I think, especially from experimental psychology, biological psychology, and even evolutionary psychology. For example, you can find Youtube videos of various mental health professionals from counseling psychology saying that penis size doesn't matter and that it is all in your head but empirical research would say the opposite:
A counseling psychologist may tell you that looks don't matter yet social psychology (notice how social psychology too is also more experimental or concrete) and even the school of business management will tell you the opposite. A counseling psychologist may tell you that you are in control of your destiny or that you have freewill yet someone from a more "harder science" branch such as neuropsychology will tell you the opposite. A counseling psychologist may tell you that you can change yet someone who is an expert in criminology may tell you that the mathematical probability of doing so is slim. Notice how the counseling psychologist or various mental health professionals always seem to tell you the opposite or something different.
This is also the problem with MBTI theory. It is essentially encouraging discrimination based on 16 personality types. Perhaps the goal shouldn't really be to classify or categorize people but to help people find what they want to do in life and achieve their goals. Maybe it is actually far more simple than we think it is. It's the "N-way" of how we are all alike and so therefore we should find our path or way in life (appreciating the notion of diversity and how each and everyone of us has a specific talent to foster and grow).
MBTI is not useful for me because it's interesting how even here at INTJf, there are a lot of historical threads having to do with the confusion between INTJ and INTP or INTx. It's fascinating why there doesn't seem to be complaints about the difference between INFJ and INFP. Even that Celebrity Types website has a test to provide clarity between INFP and INFJ or INFx. Once again, there could be several possibilities here, each in which I could probably go a very long rant about. The commonality of mistype is also what makes MBTI not so useful as NTs could actually be NFs, plus the third dimension of MBTI has the weakest test-retest reliability too.
I think you may be right about NFs having an amazing ability to understand people. Even this INTJ female thinks so:
Because NFs have a tendency to want to understand people, I think in some ways, this can be advantageous for not just INFPs but NFs in general. It's sort like what someone said in another forum having to do with INTPs, the notion of an "INFJ mastermind." It's interesting the label of "masterminds" is given to INTJs but that is not to say that there can't be a version of an INFJ mastermind. Based on my interactions here at INTJf, I do think NFs (the people correctly typed of course) are better at utilizing psychological strategies or techniques than NTs not that NTs can't do it just that NFs do it slightly better. Keep in mind I do think there are a lot of mistyped people here though.
A scientific laboratory report is supposed to start out broad and then get into specifics. Since we are in an internet forum, I think we can skip the broad points and get into specifics. Apparently, I believe this is not a specialized forum and I remain a bit skeptical for certain individuals who claim to have expertise. But that can be a very long rant so I'll stop there.
The best way to teach people is to actually provide examples first not start out with some vague abstract concept. If all N-types did was just talk in abstraction and theory, they are only making a fool of themselves. Some logic or concreteness must be realized, otherwise, it is not reminiscent of true science. You might as well equate the word "theory" to that of a "guess" or "hypothesis." People want experimental analysis and facts. So if one wants to teach a child something, you don't start out with something abstract, in fact, anybody who had taken developmental psychology would know that.
"Dark Side of NF" was very interesting although I would like to hear their take on the other types and not just the temperaments. Do you agree with the dark side of INFPs?
I think you are right, it's as absurd as saying that T-types don't have feelings or that F-types don't think. As far as I understand it we all have intuition, sensing, thinking and feeling we just prefer to use one way of perceiving and judging. For intuitives it's easier to get from the abstraction to the specific while for sensors it's easier to get from the specific to the abstract. Personally I can work well with details and specifics but without a theory I find interesting behind it it's just mundane and I'd rather not do it.
I'm not sure to what degree intuitives present the abstraction to help the audience or because it's just the way they prefer to think. Maybe it also depends on the kind of intuitive. But you are definitely right regarding the Albert Einstein quote.
I think my ESTJ colleague would start with examples and then present the abstraction while I would start with the abstraction and then give examples. Have to think about that some more.
MBTI has been very useful for me because it accurately describes how I think and it gives me names for the patterns I observed in other people. It also helps me to understand other people better which is a weak spot of mine.
You mentioned Human Resource Management and neurodegeneration, are those interests of yours?
The notion that N-types can’t handle details is absurd in my opinion. Just compare a Human Resource Management textbook taught for undergraduates with the one taught at the graduate level. It is not less but more details.
I guess if one buys into MBTI and see treat it as true science, then yeah, maybe one is right when one is doing the act of differentiating between N-types and S-types with the acknowledgment that the thesaurus acknowledges the dichotomy between both of that which is empirical and that which is theoretical.
And if one is having an exceptionally difficult time with details, then one may have trouble following, listening, or comprehending that one Youtube video on neurodegeneration by Dr. Robert Sapolsky.
So in effect, it might actually be the opposite to MBTI theory. Perhaps N-types just like to “spoon-feed” or “dumb it down a little” to those that they are teaching to. In other words, the act of “getting to the point” is akin to presenting the “bigger picture perspective” for the purpose of helping the audience understand…..if that makes any sense….As Albert Einstein once said, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
"When you choose to view your stress response as helpful, you create the biology of courage. And when you choose to connect with others under stress, you can create resilience. ... Stress gives us access to our hearts. The compassionate heart, that finds joy and meaning in connecting with others. And yes, your pounding physical heart, working so hard to give you strength and energy. And when we choose to view stress in this way, you're not just getting better at stress, you're actually making a pretty profound statement. You're saying that you can trust yourself to handle life's challenges and you're remembering you don't have to face them alone."
***After watching that video, while Dr. McGonigal mentions some good points and I believe I have addressed this earlier about the psychology aspect akin to the self-fulfilling prophecy, keep in mind that it doesn't take into account the outside variables besides psychology such as genetics, nutrition access, poverty, etc. in a comparative context.
Take the case of the little girl Genie for example. You just have a lot of scholars thinking they can "push" someone to "change" and has that worked? I even remember sitting in one of my psychology classes watching a documentary on Genie and this one lady on there said something about how she knew Genie wasn't mentally retarded or something like that. Yet, nothing has significantly changed in Genie, has it (rhetorical question)?***
“That's the thing about true love, dearie. It can slip through your fingers. It's the most powerful magic in the world, the only magic powerful enough to break any curse. It must be protected at all costs.” – the fictional character Rumplestiltskin/Mr. Gold/The Dark One from the television series Once Upon A Time.
“True love, Miss Swan—the only magic strong enough to transcend realms and break any curse. Luckily for you, I happen to have bottled some.” – the fictional character Rumplestiltskin/Mr. Gold/The Dark One from the television series Once Upon A Time.
“If you can bottle love, you can do anything.” – the fictional character Rumplestiltskin/Mr. Gold/The Dark One from the television series Once Upon A Time.
There's one more non-verbal communication in hand shaking. The hand that's on top is socially dominant.
Originally Posted by andante
All it takes is a little twist where if you're on top and controlling the few pumps, the message is that you're dominant.
Actually, it doesn't indicate social dominance, only that a person is trying to convey dominance (usually a douchebag) over people who may be ignorant about non-verbal communication. It's often employed by individuals who are insecure and feel a need to dominate others in order to have any sense of self-worth.
According to body language expert, Tonya Reiman, those who use the Dominant Handshake, "obviously feel a tremendous lack of personal power if they need to dominate you that badly."
Therefore, it more accurately indicates a person who is insecure, akin to the submissive handshake or limp handshake. A self-confident, assertive person will greet others with a mutually respectful handshake.
Originally Posted by Nicodemus
Well, if you need to send that message through subtle handshake details, chances are it is a lie.
I don't put much thought into handshakes I just do them. I don't think most people plan handshakes.
Most people don't. The majority of our body language is conveyed unconsciously. We also read it unconsciously in others, which is why we get certain vibes about people without knowing why. Even those who haven't studied body language, to some degree, have an innate ability to read it. A person who is consciously unaware of the nuances of non-verbal communication may fall victim to someone else's domination tactics and unconsciously feel inferior, vulnerable or defensive...and not even know why.
Similar gestures can be seen in other primates where positioning the palms upward is an indication of submission. This was recently demonstrated in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, when they were fighting amongst themselves to establish a hierarchy and the previous "alpha" of the group is dethroned and reluctantly communicates his subservience to Caesar with his head bowed and palm facing upward.