[INTP] INTP Central

[MacGuffin]

That was one of the most painfully obvious setups, but it had funny moments. Keep trying, though. You'll get there.

That wasn't funny.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

That wasn't funny.

I wasn't trying to make you laugh.

meh

Of course NTs are funny and mac is funny, but some social dynamics get really old and dysfunctional. There is a point it stops being funny and becomes like regurgitated vomit.

 

[the soulless one]

I wasn't trying to make you laugh.

meh

Of course NTs are funny and mac is funny, but some social dynamics get really old and dysfunctional. There is a point it stops being funny and becomes like regurgitated vomit. And no that isn't funny either.

Especially when it's built around some pseudo-psychology which somehow causes people to think that if they fall under some arbitrary classification of personality that somehow these abstract distinctions actually mean something like that 'NTs' lack emotions, 'NFs' are emotional, stupid clods, and so on, which are all built on half-assed stereotypes which look like they came out of some grade school social disarray, and quite frankly, as an onlooker, it's really embarrassing for all of its infantile logic and subsequent infantile behavior.

But I guess I prefer going by my own standards and not trying to be someone some test tells me I am...

As for INTPc, just another web forum with a default atmosphere you are expected to abide by like most any web forum where by hanging around often enough and long enough, you begin to adopt that way of thinking without realizing how different your thought pattern might be if you just backed off and did things your own way.

 

[Resonance]

Especially when it's built around some pseudo-psychology which somehow causes people to think that if they fall under some arbitrary classification of personality that somehow these abstract distinctions actually mean something like that 'NTs' lack emotions, 'NFs' are emotional, stupid clods, and so on, which are all built on half-assed stereotypes which look like they came out of some grade school social disarray, and quite frankly, as an onlooker, it's really embarrassing for all of its infantile logic and subsequent infantile behavior.

But I guess I prefer going by my own standards and not trying to be someone some test tells me I am...

As for INTPc, just another web forum with a default atmosphere you are expected to abide by like most any web forum where by hanging around often enough and long enough, you begin to adopt that way of thinking without realizing how different your thought pattern might be if you just backed off and did things your own way.

Considering that NTs, by definition, attribute to themselves qualities like "I often have difficulty expressing my emotions" and NFs things like "People almost always know what I'm feeling", I think 'stereotype' is not an accurate descriptor.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Considering that NTs, by definition, attribute to themselves qualities like "I often have difficulty expressing my emotions" and NFs things like "People almost always know what I'm feeling", I think 'stereotype' is not an accurate descriptor.

You do realize that if your claim is true, it follows that every true NT describes him or herself as a person who struggles to express emotions and every NF describes him or herself as an emotionally attuned person. When you say NTs by definition do X, it follows that if someone is an NT, they do X. If you follow the naive, Keirseyan account of an NT, your claim would be more likely to be be true as part of his definition of an NT includes a personality feature of an individual who is emotionally reserved. However, one has compelling reasons to impugn the conceptual integrity of that notion. However, you also stated that the NT people describe themselves as having the quality X, not even Keirsey made such an outrageous assertion, he only maintained that NTs have the quality X. Furthermore, Not all prominent authors define types as hard and fast, immutable personality features, many, such as Carl Jung and Leonor Thomson see type as a collection of psychological inclination and in some cases behavioral tendencies rather than full blown personality characteristics. Despite Keirsey's immense popularity with the laymen, he garnered very little support among serious researchers. In other words, there is no reason to think that all true NTs even have the personality feature of being reserved, even less is there a reason to think that all true NTs 'attribute' that quality to themselves.

What does this mean? A temperament oriented theory of type implies that being an NT at best may lead a person to have an inclination to be emotionally reserved, and the temperament of NF leads one to have an inclination to be emotionally attuned. Similarly, the fact that someone is an extrovert means that they at best may have an inclination to be loud, but it does not guarantee that every extrovert is loud. \There is a big difference between merely having a tendency to develop a personality feature and actually having the personality quality in question.

As disconcerting as this may sound, but typology-central is much less committed to the pious cause of making grandiose and far-reaching inferences about characters of large groups of people on the basis of vague, unsupported, arbitrary and often incoherent personality descriptions than INTPc is.

 

[Resonance]

You do realize that if your claim is true, it follows that every true NT describes him or herself as a person who struggles to express emotions and every NF describes him or herself as an emotionally attuned person. When you say NTs by definition do X, it follows that if someone is an NT, they do X. If you follow the naive, Keirseyan account of an NT, your claim would be more likely to be be true as part of his definition of an NT includes a personality feature of an individual who is emotionally reserved. However, one has compelling reasons to impugn the conceptual integrity of that notion. However, you also stated that the NT people describe themselves as having the quality X, not even Keirsey made such an outrageous assertion, he only maintained that NTs have the quality X. Furthermore, Not all prominent authors define types as hard and fast, immutable personality features, many, such as Carl Jung and Leonor Thomson see type as a collection of psychological inclination and in some cases behavioral tendencies rather than full blown personality characteristics. Despite Keirsey's immense popularity with the laymen, he garnered very little support among serious researchers. In other words, there is no reason to think that all true NTs even have the personality feature of being reserved, even less is there a reason to think that all true NTs 'attribute' that quality to themselves.

What does this mean? A temperament oriented theory of type implies that being an NT at best may lead a person to have an inclination to be emotionally reserved, and the temperament of NF leads one to have an inclination to be emotionally attuned. Similarly, the fact that someone is an extrovert means that they at best may have an inclination to be loud, but it does not guarantee that every extrovert is loud. \There is a big difference between merely having a tendency to develop a personality feature and actually having the personality quality in question.

As disconcerting as this may sound, but typology-central is much less committed to the pious cause of making grandiose and far-reaching inferences about characters of large groups of people on the basis of vague, unsupported, arbitrary and often incoherent personality descriptions than INTPc is.

You're going waaaaaaaaaaay too far with this. People who make those selections on the MBTI will come out as either T or F respectively. That is what I mean by 'by definition'.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You're going waaaaaaaaaaay too far with this. People who make those selections on the MBTI will come out as either T or F respectively. That is what I mean by 'by definition'.

Your assertion was that the claim that NTs are emotionally reserved is not stereotypical. By making this claim you've posited a definition of an NT, in other words you said that a certain characteristic is not a mere stereotype but a true description of something called 'NT'. Now you're merely changing your position by saying that you were discussing how people test on an MBTI assessment rather than the problem of definition of type. Your contention would have been plausible if you distinguished between a person's MBTI test result and the concept of type, yet you didn't, instead you've just declared adherence to the vague and incoherent Keirseyan personality theory that recognizes no difference between a person's test results and their type. As we may notice, he has a test in the beginning of his book that 'determines' which of his personality profiles describes you!

 

[Resonance]

Your assertion was that the claim that NTs are emotionally reserved is not stereotypical. By making this claim you've posited a definition of an NT, in other words you said that a certain characteristic is not a mere stereotype but a true description of something called 'NT'. Now you're merely changing your position by saying that you were discussing how people test on an MBTI assessment rather than the problem of definition of type. Your contention would have been plausible if you distinguished between a person's MBTI test result and the concept of type, yet you didn't, instead you've just declared adherence to the vague and incoherent Keirseyan personality theory that recognizes no difference between a person's test results and their type. As we may notice, he has a test in the beginning of his book that 'determines' which of his personality profiles describes you!

Actually, my contention is more plausible if one does not distinguish between one's MBTI test result and the concept of type. Which makes sense considering there is no scientific basis for any other interpretation.

You seem to have forgotten that MBTI is a test.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You seem to have forgotten that MBTI is a test.

A test is one thing that is associated with a definition of MBTI, but not the only thing. As you may notice, after you take your test, you're asked to review a number of lengthy profiles that supposedly describe your personality. Such profiles make ambitious theoretical claims that do require a great deal of abstract reasoning and reference to psychological research. Typically Keirsey and other MBTI enthusiasts who write online profiles are not merely discussing a test, they tend to assert that the test offers insight into the human mind and behavior. Because MBTI enthusiasts commonly talk about more than just a test when they use typological terms, the onus is on you to specify that a test is all that you have in mind when you use the term MBTI. As a general principle when you use an expression in an unconventional manner, you ought to specify what you mean otherwise it will be interpreted in a very common-place sense. Since virtually no MBTI author refer to MBTI as just a test, it stands to reason that the conventional interpretation of MBTI is a collection of views on personality that purports to explain human thought and behavior.

Your original post should have been stated as follows: people who test as NT on a personality test describe themselves as emotionally reserved.

The claim above differs significantly from the proposition that NTs by definition describe themselves as emotionally reserved because NTs are typically described as people who have certain personality qualities rather than people who merely received an 'NT' code on their Myers Briggs Type Inventory.

Which makes sense considering there is no scientific basis for any other interpretation..

There is no scientific basis for framing 'MBTI as a test' either because doing so entails a misrepresentation of MBTI.The most sensible move is rejecting MBTI altogether and recasting typology in Jungian terms or that of more rigorous modern researchers such as Thomson.

 

[Resonance]

Because MBTI enthusiasts commonly talk about more than just a test when they use typological terms, the onus is on you to specify that a test is all that you have in mind when you use the term MBTI.

It's not my fault if you have an unrealistic understanding of what the MBTI instrument actually entails.

As for the profiles, they also include statements such as "has trouble expressing emotions" or "is very expressive of emotions", so I don't know why you would bother addressing that if your goal is to prove me wrong?

P.S. I'm going to start only reading the first sentence of each of your paragraphs if you're going to say the same thing over and over in each of them.

There is no scientific basis for framing 'MBTI as a test' either because doing so entails a misrepresentation of MBTI.

No, it doesn't.

The most sensible move is rejecting MBTI altogether

Yes.

and recasting typology in Jungian terms

No.

or that of more rigorous modern researchers

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

such as Thomson.

No.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It's not my fault if you have an unrealistic understanding of what the MBTI instrument actually entails..

I have no expectation of what the MBTI entails, I merely point out that it purports to have explanatory power regarding human behavior and thought, yet it actually does not. If anything, my claim is an admonition that a great deal of insight should not be expected from MBTI.

As for the profiles, they also include statements such as "has trouble expressing emotions" or "is very expressive of emotions", so I don't know why you would bother addressing that if your goal is to prove me wrong?..

That supports my claim that MBTI makes many assertions about the nature of personality, it is an attempt to comprehensively describe people, in other words it is more than just a test.

Yes..?..

Since you have agreed with me that MBTI should be abandoned, there is absolutely no reason for you to be uttering such non-sense as 'NTs by definition label themselves as people who struggle to express emotions because by doing so you invoke MBTI concepts which is inconsistent with the attitude of repudiation of the entire system. Saying MBTI is just a test not only misrepresents the nature of the system by ignoring a large part of it(namely the type profiles that invoke a host of psychological claims) and furnishes no execuse to claim adherence to an admittedly incoherent system.

Yes. Big Five personality traits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

That's a different system and an altogether different purpose of the kind of typology I had in mind. The Big five has performed better at a task in which MBTI failed, namely constructing a comprehensive personality theory. The Neo-Jungian typology I recommended wasn't a personality inquiry, its a mere study of cognitive tendencies which is a very small part of a personality. The subject-matter in question deals only with what people tend to do as opposed to what they in fact do. The former subject-matter is a topic for a study of temperaments, the latter is a topic for personality theory, a conceptual realm where the Big Five model appears more plausible than its rivals.

 

[Resonance]

I have no expectation of what the MBTI entails, I merely point out that it purports to have explanatory power regarding human behavior and thought, yet it actually does not. If anything, my claim is an admonition that a great deal of insight should not be expected from MBTI.

That's fantastic. Perhaps you ought to stop flaunting your knowledge of it as though it means anything, then.

That supports my claim that MBTI makes many assertions about the nature of personality, it is an attempt to comprehensively describe people, in other words it is more than just a test.

But not in such a way that it supports your original counterargument, or even disagrees with me at all.

Since you have agreed with me that MBTI should be abandoned, there is absolutely no reason for you to be uttering such non-sense as 'NTs by definition label themselves as people who struggle to express emotions because by doing so you invoke MBTI concepts which is inconsistent with the attitude of repudiation of the entire system. Saying MBTI is just a test not only misrepresents the nature of the system by ignoring a large part of it(namely the type profiles that invoke a host of psychological claims) and furnishes no execuse to claim adherence to an admittedly incoherent system.

Just because I agree that it should be abandoned doesn't mean I don't understand it. If it did, you would have a lot of excruciatingly long posts to answer for.

That's a different system and an altogether different purpose of the kind of typology I had in mind. The Big five has performed better at a task in which MBTI failed, namely constructing a comprehensive personality theory. The Neo-Jungian typology I recommended wasn't a personality inquiry, its a mere study of cognitive tendencies which is a very small part of a personality. The subject-matter in question deals only with what people tend to do as opposed to what they in fact do. The former subject-matter is a topic for a study of temperaments, the latter is a topic for personality theory, a conceptual realm where the Big Five model appears more plausible than its rivals.

The reason I referred to the Big Five isn't because it is a personality model, but because it is empirically constructed from relatively simple and demonstrable axioms (namely, that phenomena of importance to people are represented in language), and because it runs on a normal distribution system rather than the bimodal system which all Jungian typologies assume but fail to demonstrate.

The study of what people in fact do is actually the domain of behavioural psychology, not personality theory. This is a textbook example of the fundamental attribution error.

 

[Lex Talionis]

The reason I referred to the Big Five isn't because it is a personality model, but because it is empirically constructed from relatively simple and demonstrable axioms (namely, that phenomena of importance to people are represented in language), and because it runs on a normal distribution system rather than the bimodal system which all Jungian typologies assume but fail to demonstrate.

I don't care for the rest of your argument, nor his, but I feel the need to state that MBTI is not distributed according to a bimodal system. Why should this even be expected? It isn't often that you find individuals who are on the extreme end of a subscale.

As for Big Five, I don't see the purpose of it other than as a statistical source. Its only major strength lies in the fact that its data is empirically derived and statistically analyzed, but due to the fact that it isn't a personality typology and has little theory behind it, it makes it useless for actual discussion.

 

[Resonance]

I don't care for the rest of your argument, nor his, but I feel the need to state that MBTI is not distributed according to a bimodal system. Why should this even be expected? It isn't often that you find individuals who are on the extreme end of a subscale.

Statistically, the most common type is actually XXXX. :/ You don't see people bifurcating other normally-distributed groups; what's the difference between a person with an IQ of 101 and an IQ of 99? What's the difference between a person who is 5'8" and 5'9"? Nowhere near the amount of difference attributed to someone who is 60% F vs. someone who is 60% T.

As for Big Five, I don't see the purpose of it other than as a statistical source. Its only major strength lies in the fact that its data is empirically derived and statistically analyzed, but due to the fact that it isn't a personality typology and has little theory behind it, it makes it useless for actual discussion.

On the contrary, I think that the lack of pure speculation behind it makes it much more interesting for discussion, since it is much more representative of reality.

Perhaps not as open to interpretation as Jung... which I think is a good thing. Discussions become about the meaning of the facts, rather than the possible interpretations of the poorly-defined concepts. (My, that's going to net me a senser badge... it's Ti! I swear!)

Heck, MBTI isn't even orthogonal... P is moderately correlated to N (NJs and SPs are about half as common as NPs and SJs, respectively.)

 

[Lex Talionis]

Statistically, the most common type is actually XXXX. :/ You don't see people bifurcating other normally-distributed groups; what's the difference between a person with an IQ of 101 and an IQ of 99? What's the difference between a person who is 5'8" and 5'9"? Nowhere near the amount of difference attributed to someone who is 60% F vs. someone who is 60% T.

I hope you realize that simply because we don't typically "bifurcate" other normative distributions, it doesn't indicate that such bifurcation is impossible, not least of which because standard deviation already partially does this. Assuming a normal distribution, 50% of all individuals would fall within the right half of the curve, and 50% would fall in the left. This does not indicate that the majority of the population is "XXXX," but that the subscales are not as extreme as is usually believed, and was assumed until a statistical analysis was conducted.

Since IQ tests have predictive value, it is important to categorize different values so as to extract further data.

On the contrary, I think that the lack of pure speculation behind it makes it much more interesting for discussion, since it is much more representative of reality.

Perhaps not as open to interpretation as Jung... which I think is a good thing. Discussions become about the meaning of the facts, rather than the possible interpretations of the poorly-defined concepts. (My, that's going to net me a senser badge... it's Ti! I swear!)

Heck, MBTI isn't even orthogonal... P is moderately correlated to N (NJs and SPs are about half as common as NPs and SJs, respectively.)

MBTI also offers statistical data. The only difference between the two is that one was solely designed to gather empirical evidence and not to act as a descriptive model, while the other is offered as a personality guide which seeks to create a psychological profile based on a theoretical understanding of personality functions. This is why I find MBTI to be far more insightful and interesting, if sometimes "less" reliable. It offers a far more comprehensive and intuitive insight into personality types, and as a result, provides more applicative knowledge for the student of psychometrics.

What is ironic is that much of the data collected by Big Five can be correlated with Myers-Briggs, yet I still see individuals like yourself who doubt the validity of MBTI and choose to focus on Big Five based on false premises; namely, that Big Five is better because of its empirically derived results. If vast sums of money were poured into MBTI, like they have been into Big Five, the typology would gain far more credibility.

 

[Resonance]

I hope you realize that simply because we don't typically "bifurcate" other normative distributions, it doesn't indicate that such bifurcation is impossible, not least of which because standard deviation already partially does this. Assuming a normal distribution, 50% of all individuals would fall within the right half of the curve, and 50% would fall in the left. This does not indicate that the majority of the population is "XXXX," but that the subscales are not as extreme as is usually believed, and was assumed until a statistical analysis was conducted.

Since IQ tests have predictive value, it is important to categorize different values so as to extract further data.

Not impossible, just silly.

MBTI also offers statistical data. The only difference between the two is that one was solely designed to gather empirical evidence and not to act as a descriptive model, while the other is offered as a personality guide which seeks to create a psychological profile based on a theoretical understanding of personality functions. This is why I find MBTI to be far more insightful and interesting, if sometimes "less" reliable. It offers a far more comprehensive and intuitive insight into personality types, and as a result, provides more applicative knowledge for the student of psychometrics.

It's nice to think about, but it's not reliable (I forget where I saw the figure but about 40% of people 'change type' on subsequent applications of the *same test* - that is almost as bad as the Rorschach inkblots) or valid (the brain isn't actually split into 4 or 8 'functions') - both of these properties are crucial for a professional approach to psychometrics.

What is ironic is that much of the data collected by Big Five can be correlated with Myers-Briggs, yet I still see individuals like yourself who doubt the validity of MBTI and choose to focus on Big Five based on false premises; namely, that Big Five is better because of its empirically derived results. If vast sums of money were poured into MBTI, like they have been into Big Five, the typology would gain far more credibility.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin with this.

-The validity of a test is the extent to which it measures what it claims to measure. MBTI claims to measure cognitive function preferences or something, which (to my knowledge) has little correlation to actual brain topography. Big Five measures the extent to which people attribute certain culturally-validated traits to themselves.

-Just because MBTI is correlated with the Big 5 doesn't mean it's as valid - again, partly because it claims to measure something different, and again, partly because MBTI is not orthogonal.

-The whole system is empirically derived, not just the results...

-Even then, how is that a false premise? Do you think that unrealistic/inaccurate explanations are better for some reason?

-Vast sums of money have been poured into MBTI, and it has lost credibility because it's actually at odds with reality.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

That's fantastic. Perhaps you ought to stop flaunting your knowledge of it as though it means anything, then..

I did not claim or imply to have knowledge of MBTI in this correspondence.

But not in such a way that it supports your original counterargument, or even disagrees with me at all...

Review the discussion more carefully, it can be summarized as follows.

B: NTs by definition describe themselves as emotionally reserved.
S: An NT, if coherently defined is a mere cognitive tendency, not a full blown personality trait. By definition, 'NTness' entails no behavior even similar to emotional reservation.
B: NT is an MBTI label, and MBTI is just a test.
SW: No, MBTI is not just a test, a test is one thing that MBTI is, yet it is also a system that purports to explain the nature of human thought and behavior. The explanations of human behavior provided by MBTI are often erroneous.
B: The MBTI personality profiles frequently attribute emotional reservation to NTs.
S: This means that MBTI is not only test.

Explanatory note: You said MBTI is a test, yet you did not say that it is just a test. By pointing out that MBTI is more than test, I am not a disagreeing with you but merely pointing out that your initial thesis was incomplete.

S: Furthermore, because MBTI explanations are typically erroneous and the system is itself incoherent, it is proper for MBTI to be rejected.
B: Agreed.


My review of the discourse up to this point. I have shown that your initial claim is false; namely the assertion that NTs by definition describe themselves as emotionally reserved. In order for the above claim to be true, it has to be the case that at least some MBTI claims to be true as this assertion is in itself an MBTI claim. I have also pointed out that it is impossible to salvage your argument by merely redefining MBTI as a test, because a test is one but not the only aspect of MBTI.

In one sentence, I have shown that your claim that 'NTs are by definition emotionally reserved is false' by exposing it as an MBTI-grounded comment on personality theory and by appealing to the general falsity of MBTI assertions. The conclusion that absolutely all MBTI claims are false is controversial, however, for the sake of this argument we have agreed that MBTI is incoherent altogether and should be rejected, in other words, we have agreed that we can regard all MBTI claims as false. This leads your argument to the following contradiction. All MBTI statements are false and a certain MBTI claim is true, specifically that regarding NTs being by definition emotionally reserved.

Just because I agree that it should be abandoned doesn't mean I don't understand it....

Whether you understand MBTI is irrelevant, what is relevant is that by saying that NTs are by definition emotionally reserved you embrace the system. In other words, you assert that such a thing as 'NTs exists' and NTs are emotionally reserved. This is an MBTI claim. I think that now you attempt to look at MBTI from a purely exegetical account or to merely describe the claims it makes without proclaiming adherence to them. You could accomplish this goal by saying that according to MBTI NTs are by definition emotionally reserved, or according to the MBTI test, NTs are emotionally reserved.

To better understand the difference between your original statement and my recommended correction, consider the distinction between the two claims below.

1. Christians are by definition destined for eternal salvation.
2. According to many contemporary Christian theologies, Christians are saved by definition.

The study of what people in fact do is actually the domain of behavioural psychology, not personality theory..

Personality theory is a subset of the domain of behavioral psychology. Contemporary researchers rely very heavily on behaviors to explain one's fundamental personality features. For example, a person is deemed to have an outgoing or an extroverted personality because he consistently behaves in an outgoing fashion. This is the cornerstone of empirically informed research on personality theory, it allows us to ground our claims about an individual's character in 'simple and demonstrable observations'. This methodology stands in sharp contrast with the Jungian method of personality inquiry that deals with mental tendencies rather than observable behaviors.

Tangential note: When neuroscience sophisticates, researchers should be able to run empirical testing on mental tendencies, that way it will be possible to discover if Jungian conceptions truly do reflect the fundamental cognitive proclivities of the human mind.

This is a textbook example of the fundamental attribution error.

Make sure that you understand the psychological terms that you have in mind before writing about them.

Fundamental attribution error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fundamental attribution error consists in attributing a person's behavior to his fundamental personality features rather than circumstances. For example, John was the life of the party for the last five years, yet recently he has gone to war and now suffers from a post-traumatic stress syndrome, if his therapist assumes that John's reservation is to be attributed to his general introversion rather than his recent circumstances, the psychologist would be guilty of the fundamental attribution error.

I made no such error, I merely invoked the distinction between the study of mental tendencies and behaviors. The error you think I have made consisted in misdefining personality theory. In order for you to corroborate that assertion you'd have to show that I was incorrect to maintain that personality theory is a sub-discipline of behavioral psychology. In other words, to be Extroverted on the Big Five model means to consistently behave in an outgoing manner, the essence of this claim is underscored in light of its comparison to a Jungian conception of Extroversion cognitive tendency to favor an outgoing mentality. The behavioral foundation of the Big Five allows researchers to predict how people may behave in the future, if the Big Five was non-behavioral at best, it would allow people may think in the future which is something that the researchers of this personality model are not profoundly interested in.

 

[Resonance]

I did not claim or imply to have knowledge of MBTI in this correspondence.

This is getting pretty boring. I mean, it was always boring, but now you're just getting farther and farther from coherence or conciseness which is really demotivating for me.

Review the discussion more carefully, it can be summarized as follows.

B: NTs by definition describe themselves as emotionally reserved.
S: An NT, if coherently defined is a mere cognitive tendency, not a full blown personality trait. By definition, 'NTness' entails no behavior even similar to emotional reservation.
B: NT is an MBTI label, and MBTI is just a test.
SW: No, MBTI is not just a test, a test is one thing that MBTI is, yet it is also a system that purports to explain the nature of human thought and behavior. The explanations of human behavior provided by MBTI are often erroneous.
B: The MBTI personality profiles frequently attribute emotional reservation to NTs.
S: This means that MBTI is not only test.

Explanatory note: You said MBTI is a test, yet you did not say that it is just a test. By pointing out that MBTI is more than test, I am not a disagreeing with you but merely pointing out that your initial thesis was incomplete.

S: Furthermore, because MBTI explanations are typically erroneous and the system is itself incoherent, it is proper for MBTI to be rejected.
B: Agreed.


My review of the discourse up to this point. I have shown that your initial claim is false; namely the assertion that NTs by definition describe themselves as emotionally reserved. In order for the above claim to be true, it has to be the case that at least some MBTI claims to be true as this assertion is in itself an MBTI claim. I have also pointed out that it is impossible to salvage your argument by merely redefining MBTI as a test, because a test is one but not the only aspect of MBTI.

In one sentence, I have shown that your claim that 'NTs are by definition emotionally reserved is false' by exposing it as an MBTI-grounded comment on personality theory and by appealing to the general falsity of MBTI assertions. The conclusion that absolutely all MBTI claims are false is controversial, however, for the sake of this argument we have agreed that MBTI is incoherent altogether and should be rejected, in other words, we have agreed that we can regard all MBTI claims is false. This leads your argument to the following contradiction. All MBTI statements are false and a certain MBTI claim is true, specifically that regarding NTs being by definition emotionally reserved.

That's a fallacy. Just because a theory is incoherent, incomplete, or untenable doesn't mean all of its predictions are false.

Whether you understand MBTI is irrelevant, what is relevant is that by saying that NTs are by definition emotionally reserved you embrace the system. In other words, you assert that such a thing as 'NTs exists' and NTs are emotionally reserved. This is an MBTI claim. I think that now you attempt to look at MBTI from a purely exegetical account or to merely describe the claims it makes without proclaiming adherence to them. You could accomplish this goal by saying that according to MBTI NTs are by definition emotionally reserved, or according to the MBTI test, NTs are emotionally reserved.

To better understand the difference between your original statement and my recommended correction, consider the distinction between the two claims below.

1. Christians are by definition destined for eternal salvation.
2. According to many contemporary Christian theologies Christians are saved by definition.

That is not necessary. Your assertion that I 'should' do that so that you can keep up is very egocentric.

Personality theory is a subset of the domain of behavioral psychology. Contemporary researchers rely very heavily on behaviors to explain one's fundamental personality features. For example, a person is deemed to have an outgoing or an extroverted personality because he consistently behaves in an outgoing fashion. This is the cornerstone of empirically informed research on personality theory, it allows us to ground our claims about an individual's character in 'simple and demonstrable observations'. This methodology stands in sharp contrast with the Jungian method of personality inquiry that deals with mental tendencies rather than observable behaviors.

Tangential note: When neuroscience sophisticates, researchers should be able to run empirical testing on mental tendencies, that way it will be possible to discover if Jungian conceptions truly do reflect the fundamental cognitive proclivities of the human mind.

Make sure that you understand the psychological terms that you have in mind before writing about them.

Fundamental attribution error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fundamental attribution error consists in attributing a person's behavior to his fundamental personality features rather than circumstances. For example, John was the life of the party for the last five years, yet recently he has gone to war and now suffers from a post-traumatic stress syndrome, if his therapist assumes that John's reservation is to be attributed to his general introversion rather than his recent circumstances, the psychologist would be guilty of the fundamental attribution error.

I made no such error, I merely invoked the distinction between the study of mental tendencies and behaviors. The error you think I have made consisted in misdefining personality theory. In order for you to corroborate that assertion you'd have to show that I was incorrect to maintain that personality theory is a sub-discipline of behavioral psychology. In other words, to be Extroverted on the Big Five model means to consistently behave in an outgoing manner, the essence of this claim is underscored in light of its comparison to a Jungian conception of Extroversion cognitive tendency to favor an outgoing mentality. The behavioral foundation of the Big Five allows researchers to predict how people may behave in the future, if the Big Five was non-behavioral at best, it would allow people may think in the future which is something that the researchers of this personality model are not profoundly interested in.

No, you asserted that personality theory is the study of 'what people in fact do', which is the general formula for the fundamental attribution error.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

MBTI claims to measure cognitive function preferences or something, which (to my knowledge) has little correlation to actual brain topography.

MBTI is an acronym for Meyers Briggs Type Indicator, the author in whose honor the system is named was a successor of Jung and in the spirit of his method of psychological method was interested in cognitive preferences. However, her theory did not focus on cognitive preferences exclusively. It also emphasized behaviors, for example, part of her definition of Feeling is a decision-making behavior that involves a careful consideration of the feelings and attitudes of others as well as an effort to establish harmony with them. The more modern authors have repudiated Meyers's ideas that focused on cognitive preferences and emphasized behaviors more. Shortly thereafter, Keirsey emerged who sought to reform Meyers's work as a behavioral system and asserted that knowing a person's type allows one to know what he or she will do.

Many of the writers who have before subscribed to Meyers were profoundly influenced by him and have recasted MBTI in behavioristic terms. Thus, today MBTI claims to measure a person's proclivities for observable behaviors more than preferences for this or that cognitive function.

Big Five measures the extent to which people attribute certain culturally-validated traits to themselves..

The Big Five test measures 'the extent to which people attribute certain culturally-validated traits to themselves', however, that is not the case for the Big Five Model in itself. The Big Five model aspires to determine the behaviors that are consistently displayed by people and suggests that the behaviors in question show the five fundamental respects in which people differ from one another.

This is getting pretty boring. I mean, it was always boring, but now you're just getting farther and farther from coherence or conciseness which is really demotivating for me...

Its quite coherent and as concise as it could be without compromising thoroughness and your inability to notice inconsistencies in your own reasoning led you to embrace a self-serving bias that naively convinced you that my claims are somehow incoherent.

That's a fallacy. Just because a theory is incoherent, incomplete, or untenable doesn't mean all of its predictions are false..

Read more carefully, I already said that the claim that all MBTI claims are false is controversial and do not have support for it, nor do I intend to attempt to support it. However, I maintained that for the sake of this argument we have agreed that all MBTI claims are false. The premise that all MBTI claims are false is hypothetical rather than actual.

However, we can drop this example altogether. You have agreed that MBTI should be rejected altogether yet you subtly embrace one of its claims by stating that NTs are by definition emotionally reserved. That is the contradiction in your reasoning: a wholesale rejection of MBTI and an endorsement of one of its claims.

That is not necessary. Your assertion that I 'should' do that so that you can keep up is very egocentric...

Its simply a way to help you understand your error. The psychological motivations behind my arguments are completely irrelevant.

No, you asserted that personality theory is the study of 'what people in fact do', which is the general formula for the fundamental attribution error.

Read the article on the Fundamental Attribution error I've cited, or explain how the Wikipedia entry is erroneous. If the Wikipedia article is correct, your definition of the fundamental attribution error is mistaken. Alternatively, you may cite another, more authoritative explanation of the fundamental attribution error. I notice that you have a habit of merely ignoring the arguments against your position without considering their merit which is the true reason for your demotivation to continue. The purpose of this discussion is to challenge one's own views and put them to greater scrutiny, yet since you are not willing to even attempt to do that, its very easy to see why you're struggling to retain an interest in continuing. Yet, nonetheless, I appreciate that you have unwittingly offered me an opportunity to re-examine my own views once more.

 

[Resonance]

you know what, never mind