User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Ambiversion

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    The MBTI dichotomies correspond to four of the Big Five dimensions, and its 16 "types" are just the 16 possible combinations of preferences with respect to those four.

    That "robust study" you're talking about framed its "clumpings" in terms of the Big Five dimensions, and if you think its results should be taken as undermining the validity of those dimensions (or the MBTI), I'd say you've misunderstood the study.

    As for the "MBTI is pseudoscience" charge... I've put some recycled reckful in the spoiler, just for you.

    There's correlation to the Big Five but they're not a one to one. And not only that but some of the correlations are very weak. You and I have gone over this on multiple sites.
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

  2. #22
    Junior Member Hot Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    Nope. The MBTI statistics per type, don't align with the four predominant personality type clumpings.

    These Are the Four Big Personality Types, According to Science | Time

    These Are the Four Big Personality Types, According to Science

    MBTI/Jungian cognitive functions isn't pseudo science. It's just that there are more factors involved than MBTI. It tells you what hierarchy of Jungian cognitive functions you have but it doesn't tell you where you lay exactly on the introvert/extrovert scale. For example, there are introverted INTJs and ambiverted INTJs. There are introverted ESFPs, ambiverted ESFPs and extroverted ESFPs. You're telling me that there is absolutely no difference between an ambiverted INTJ and an ambiverted ESFP? The four big personality types are a piece of the puzzle, but it's missing a lot. You might like Dario Nardi's "Neuroscience of Personality."
    Last edited by Hot Dog; 08-12-2019 at 06:29 PM. Reason: typo
    5w6 sp/sx

    Eat me.

  3. #23
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    MBTI dichotomies aren't much better since they're pseudo-science. Most recently, there was a robust study that found the vast majority of the population falls within four personality clumpings, not 16.
    Even if the clusters are valid, that doesn't mean that other systems aren't also valid. Does it?
    the lone star flies alone
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hot Dog View Post
    MBTI/Jungian cognitive functions isn't pseudo science. It's just that there are more factors involved than MBTI. It tells you what hierarchy of Jungian cognitive functions you have but it doesn't tell you where you lay exactly on the introvert/extrovert scale. For example, there are introverted INTJs and ambiverted INTJs. There are introverted ESFPs, ambiverted ESFPs and extroverted ESFPs. You're telling me that there is absolutely no difference between an ambiverted INTJ and an ambiverted ESFP? The four big personality types are a piece of the puzzle, but it's missing a lot. You might like Dario Nardi's "Neuroscience of Personality."
    I've read the Neuroscience of Personality, Gifts Differing, Was that Really Me and Jung.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Even if the clusters are valid, that doesn't mean that other systems aren't also valid. Does it?
    If you refer back to where my engagement began with reckful, he was disparaging cognitive functions as is his wont since he's of the mindset that MBTI is scientific and the Grant stacking is a fabrication.

    Where I stand is that there's insight in most personality typing systems but also, MBTI, Grant stacking, Enneagram and a few others are pseudo-science at best. IMO, the journey is the benefit from self-evaluation, not necessarily the result.
    Likes Legion liked this post

  5. #25
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    667

    Default

    For anyone unfamiliar with that study bechimo's talking about, it lumps everyone who's above-average in Big Five Openness (i.e., all MBTI N's) into a single category, which it calls the Role Model type.

    Extraverted Ns and introverted Ns, NJs and NPs, NTs and NFs... hey, when it comes right down to it, those kinds of distinctions are so trivial that they're effectively overwhelmed by all the Role-Modely samenesses that N's tend to share, amirite?

    Well, actually, if I was forced to bet, I'd bet that five years from now, this "robust" set of personality "types" will have (understandably) failed to gain any significant traction, and be long forgotten. But maybe bechimo can tell us more about why she sees those four clumps as some kind of revolutionary step forward in the field of personality psychology.

  6. #26
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    If you refer back to where my engagement began with reckful, he was disparaging cognitive functions as is his wont since he's of the mindset that MBTI is scientific and the Grant stacking is a fabrication.

    Where I stand is that there's insight in most personality typing systems but also, MBTI, Grant stacking, Enneagram and a few others are pseudo-science at best. IMO, the journey is the benefit from self-evaluation, not necessarily the result.
    Hmm my approach is in searching for the truth of type. I call it Jungian type because it was basically started with Jung, and MBTI and other approaches have uncovered piece after piece about it (but they're only pointing to what's there, not the decider on what it supposedly is). I don't know whether my approach is scientific, but I don't think something has to be science to be a valid determination of how things are, and I think my investigations are valid. So I think that it's not just the self-evaluation, but rather that there is an underlying truth to it, and if there can be valid type assessments done on a subset of the population, I am of the strong suspicion that there will be very strong results uncovered in terms of revealing explanatory power of the 16 types (e.g. correlations with careers, relationship pairings, and all sorts of behaviours).

    I think the data/interpretation of the data that @reckful is referencing must be flawed in terms of supposedly practically disproving the "Grant function stack". Questionnaire's aren't a valid way to determine type with accuracy, so it's not entirely unexpected that they wouldn't be revealing the theory that I can see as being real. Questionnaire data can be useful in its own right, but it's certainly not all there is. But of course it's ok to be skeptical until something can be demonstrated to you in a way that you understand.
    the lone star flies alone

  7. #27
    Junior Member Hot Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    I've read the Neuroscience of Personality, Gifts Differing, Was that Really Me and Jung.

    If you refer back to where my engagement began with reckful, he was disparaging cognitive functions as is his wont since he's of the mindset that MBTI is scientific and the Grant stacking is a fabrication.

    Where I stand is that there's insight in most personality typing systems but also, MBTI, Grant stacking, Enneagram and a few others are pseudo-science at best. IMO, the journey is the benefit from self-evaluation, not necessarily the result.
    MBTI, when you've researched the Jungian cognitive functions and are typed properly is extremely useful. It tells you who/what you tend to gravitate towards and react under stress. It's not "pseudo science at best" but we can agree to disagree on that. It's hard to believe you read all those books and still think it's pseudo science. From my deeply researched observations everyone falls into one of the 16 categories. Within each of those 16 categories there are an infinite number of subtypes because we're all quantum derived special snowflakes. Personality typing isn't the end-all be-all but it's very useful.
    5w6 sp/sx

    Eat me.
    Likes Abcdenfp, Vendrah liked this post

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hot Dog View Post
    MBTI, when you've researched the Jungian cognitive functions and are typed properly is extremely useful. It tells you who/what you tend to gravitate towards and react under stress. It's not "pseudo science at best" but we can agree to disagree on that. It's hard to believe you read all those books and still think it's pseudo science. From my deeply researched observations everyone falls into one of the 16 categories. Within each of those 16 categories there are an infinite number of subtypes because we're all quantum derived special snowflakes. Personality typing isn't the end-all be-all but it's very useful.
    Repetition won't make it more scientific.

  9. #29
    Junior Member Hot Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    Repetition won't make it more scientific.
    Back atchya? Appealing to authority won't make you more correct and I'll leave it at that.

    Back to the OP I completely agree that there are extroverted introverts and introverted extroverts. I have found through personal experience that ENTJs and ISFPs tend to be the most ambiverted (they both have the same Jungian cognitive functions but in a different order!) ENTJs though lean extrovert, and ISFP introvert. But enough to make a huge difference in extroversion/introversion? Not really. I think ambiversion is a thing but we all fall on one side of the spectrum or the other even if it's very close to the middle.
    5w6 sp/sx

    Eat me.
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hot Dog View Post
    Back atchya? Appealing to authority won't make you more correct and I'll leave it at that.

    Back to the OP I completely agree that there are extroverted introverts and introverted extroverts. I have found through personal experience that ENTJs and ISFPs tend to be the most ambiverted (they both have the same Jungian cognitive functions but in a different order!) ENTJs though lean extrovert, and ISFP introvert. But enough to make a huge difference in extroversion/introversion? Not really. I think ambiversion is a thing but we all fall on one side of the spectrum or the other even if it's very close to the middle.
    This is called shifting the goal posts, since your first stance was one of attempted 'scientific' proof.

Similar Threads

  1. What is an Ambivert? 20 Signs of Ambiversion
    By Mal12345 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-23-2017, 12:27 PM
  2. Ambiversion and Individuation
    By Article Poster in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2016, 09:10 AM
  3. Ambiversion: Ideal or Myth?
    By Article Poster in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-11-2015, 01:07 AM
  4. Your Type With A Middle/Ambiversion
    By Hard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-30-2015, 02:17 AM
  5. Could having a well developed aux function cause so called "ambiversion"?
    By roastingmallows in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-15-2013, 09:36 PM

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