The Scam of the MBTI Trance

[Jaguar]

Are you saying there is no way to tell which type someone is unless they take a test?

If so, I strongly disagree.

I was repeating what Victor said to me.
I was not making a claim about typing.

Besides, forced-choice tests are not that reliable to begin with.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ You're absolutely right. The MBTI test is not particularly reliable at all.

All it really does is point you in the right direction toward learning about the 16 archetypes so you can figure out which one (or two, or possibly more) that you most closely resemble.

 

[Splittet]

^ You're absolutely right. The MBTI test is not particularly reliable at all.

And without reliability there cannot be validity.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Correct. There is no scientific validity to MBTI any more than there is scientific validity to the movie reviews you read in the Sunday paper.

I'm telling you, the only value in this stuff is subjective, and anyone with half a brain knows that.

(btw this is post #1337 for me; I AM TOTALLY LEET)

 

[Haphazard]

^ Correct. There is no scientific validity to MBTI any more than there is scientific validity to the movie reviews you read in the Sunday paper.

And yet, there are so many forums dedicated to discussing and reviewing movies. So, why not?

 

[Splittet]

^ Correct. There is no scientific validity to MBTI any more than there is scientific validity to the movie reviews you read in the Sunday paper.

I'm telling you, the only value in this stuff is subjective, and anyone with half a brain knows that.

Okay, so what you are saying, is that the only usefulness of MBTI is in the subjective enjoyment in speculating based on the theory? Again, I don't argue with that. I know plenty of people enjoy using it, but that doesn't make understanding the human mind a subjective thing, something that cannot be understood by science. The fact that many people believe astrology is useful, doesn't mean that it's not total crap. It tries to make predictions, so does MBTI as well, and they both utterly fail. What's the point, if there is no validity? By definition it's pure fantasy then.

I think you are messing with what's subjective and what's not. Is it subjective if there is a god? Is truth subjective? Are the laws of physics subjective? Are you just a relativist? Every truth is equally valid and so on?

 

[Ivy]

I assumed Victor was being silly about the being dumped for being an INFP thing.

 

[jenocyde]

I assumed Victor was being silly about the being dumped for being an INFP thing.

Oh, I hadn't even considered that, to be truthful. He has never been one to joke with me, there are always layers. But if that was a joke, it was a good one because he got me.

 

[simulatedworld]

Okay, so what you are saying, is that the only usefulness of MBTI is in the subjective enjoyment in speculating based on the theory? Again, I don't argue with that. I know plenty of people enjoy using it, but that doesn't make understanding the human mind a subjective thing, something that cannot be understood by science. The fact that many people believe astrology is useful, doesn't mean that it's not total crap. It tries to make predictions, so does MBTI as well, and they both utterly fail. What's the point, if there is no validity? By definition it's pure fantasy then.

But that's the thing--when you set up the predictions correctly, they inherently MUST succeed more often than they fail, or you've observed past behavior incorrectly. (Or simply don't have enough data yet to provide any predictive value, in which case you need to keep watching and gradually amend your position.)

Would you agree that we all engage in the process of observing the behavior of others and using it to predict what they will do in the future?

MBTI is simply one system by which to name and categorize these behaviors. It's like saying, "I'm going to arbitrarily label people who tend to like cheese as DFM7 types."

Asking me to prove that they're DFM7 types is missing the point--the entire system's use is subjective because it's defined according to one's own subjective experience. I'm ENTP because I arbitrarily decided that people who follow x, y and z behavioral/attitude patterns are ENTPs. I can't possibly verify this objectively, but I have no reason to even attempt doing so--at the end of a day, it's just a fancy system of arbitrary name-calling.

It's just that each person's idea of each type is a little different from that of others, based on the unique combination of people in each person's life. The more I talk to other people about it, the more our definitions of ENTP converge as we reach common definitions. Sometimes there are disagreements--nobody is really objectively right or wrong.

We discuss these things to look for common threads between the behaviors of people we know, and the MBTI letters are just a convenient labeling system, a shorthand for the behavioral interactions we all already automatically mentally index and access again and again later on.

You may ask: If it doesn't introduce anything that isn't already there, why bother? To me, that sounds like asking why we use terms like "D flat major" or "Mixolydian" to describe patterns of musical notes. It's simply because organizing it that way mentally makes it easier to conceptualize in certain cases. When I use these terms, I'm not trying to verify scientifically that x, y, z combination of frequencies is called "D flat major"; that isn't the point. It's all an arbitrary label.

MBTI doesn't introduce anything that isn't already there; it's just an arbitrary categorization system. It's not really intended to be a scientific methodology because there aren't any objective standards for the types--it's just a method of organizing and interpretating the behavior for easier analysis.

Do some people misapply it? Sure, but they're missing the point.

"What's the point if there is no validity?"

hehe. Spoken like a true NTJ. Suffice it to say, consider typology as an art form. All creative fields work with inherently subjective data--as I said, there is no validity to be found in movie reviews, but that doesn't mean the thousands of movie review forums on the internet are wasting their time.

If you go looking for deductive reasoning or objective validity in art, you're missing the point too.

 

[Jaguar]

"What's the point if there is no validity?"

hehe. Spoken like a true NTJ.

NO, it is not.

I have made a lot of money using a system to trade the markets,
that has never been scientifically proven "valid."
But does it work? Yes.
It's an artform to use it well.

Money talks.
Bullshit walks.

Next thing you know,
some joker is going to suggest O.J. was innocent of murder,
since he was "proven" innocent in a criminal court of law.

If you go looking for deductive reasoning or objective validity in art, you're missing the point too.

Who would look for "validity" in art?
It's purely subjective.

You make poor assumptions about how people think.

 

[Splittet]

But that's the thing--when you set up the predictions correctly, they inherently MUST succeed more often than they fail, or you've observed past behavior incorrectly. (Or simply don't have enough data yet to provide any predictive value, in which case you need to keep watching and gradually amend your position.)

Would you agree that we all engage in the process of observing the behavior of others and using it to predict what they will do in the future?

MBTI is simply one system by which to name and categorize these behaviors. It's like saying, "I'm going to arbitrarily label people who tend to like cheese as DFM7 types."

Asking me to prove that they're DFM7 types is missing the point--the entire system's use is subjective because it's defined according to one's own subjective experience. I'm ENTP because I arbitrarily decided that people who follow x, y and z behavioral/attitude patterns are ENTPs. I can't possibly verify this objectively, but I have no reason to even attempt doing so--at the end of a day, it's just a fancy system of arbitrary name-calling.

It's just that each person's idea of each type is a little different from that of others, based on the unique combination of people in each person's life. The more I talk to other people about it, the more our definitions of ENTP converge as we reach common definitions. Sometimes there are disagreements--nobody is really objectively right or wrong.

We discuss these things to look for common threads between the behaviors of people we know, and the MBTI letters are just a convenient labeling system, a shorthand for the behavioral interactions we all already automatically mentally index and access again and again later on.

You may ask: If it doesn't introduce anything that isn't already there, why bother? To me, that sounds like asking why we use terms like "D flat major" or "Mixolydian" to describe patterns of musical notes. It's simply because organizing it that way mentally makes it easier to conceptualize in certain cases. When I use these terms, I'm not trying to verify scientifically that x, y, z combination of frequencies is called "D flat major"; that isn't the point. It's all an arbitrary label.

MBTI doesn't introduce anything that isn't already there; it's just an arbitrary categorization system. It's not really intended to be a scientific methodology because there aren't any objective standards for the types--it's just a method of organizing and interpretating the behavior for easier analysis.

Do some people misapply it? Sure, but they're missing the point.

"What's the point if there is no validity?"

hehe. Spoken like a true NTJ. Suffice it to say, consider typology as an art form. All creative fields work with inherently subjective data--as I said, there is no validity to be found in movie reviews, but that doesn't mean the thousands of movie review forums on the internet are wasting their time.

If you go looking for deductive reasoning or objective validity in art, you're missing the point too.

[/QUOTE]Psychology is an academic and applied discipline involving the systematic, and often scientific, study of human mental functions and behavior.[/QUOTE]

The point is, understanding and predicting behavior and thoughts are what the science of psychology does. We human beings are indeed intuitive scientists of our own, the difference is that we don't rely on systematic methods, like scientists do. We have our own personal constructs, which we use to try to predict future events. These are a kind of personal theories. That doesn't mean these are totally subjective like art, because the best personal constructs, are those that make the best and most accurate predictions, the personal constructs that best allows us to understand and predict events.

Understanding and making statements about reality, is not comparable to making statements about the value of art. Truth is not subjective, value judgments are.

 

[simulatedworld]

The point is, understanding and predicting behavior and thoughts are what the science of psychology does. We human beings are indeed intuitive scientists of our own, the difference is that we don't rely on systematic methods, like scientists do. We have our own personal constructs, which we use to try to predict future events. These are a kind of personal theories. That doesn't mean these are totally subjective like art, because the best personal constructs, are those that make the best and most accurate predictions, the personal constructs that best allows us to understand and predict events.

Understanding and making statements about reality, is not comparable to making statements about the value of art. Truth is not subjective, value judgments are.

You can't make direct statements about reality regarding the way other people perceive and interpret data, because you don't have access to their subjective experience. You can make inductive guesses by inferring what potential motivations *might* be, but that is all.

MBTI is a kind of personal theory, and it's very similar to art in that the connections it's looking for are often abstract to the point of being largely open to interpretation.

Otherwise there wouldn't be continuing controversy between people who've studied this about the types of various individuals.

It's just like music critics debating about what genre an artist falls into. I may think they show more characteristics of genre x, but you may interpret them as characteristics of genre y instead. And yet there is no precise definition of what qualifies as any given genre--but there are generally accepted loose guidelines based on popular opinion of the informed.

I call this "inductive objectivity." I can't really prove that, for instance, the Beatles are better than Wham!, but if you disagree with that, it seems inductively likely that you're a moron.

Because these intuitive personal theories can't be objectively measured, due to the barrier created by perceptual differences between people, it has no objective value and therefore is similar to art in that there is no right or wrong, only interpretation.

 

[Edgar]

It tries to make predictions, so does MBTI as well, and they both utterly fail. What's the point, if there is no validity? By definition it's pure fantasy then.

Would you say that a person trained in aikido is more likely to effectively deal with a hostile stranger than a person who is completely ignorant of all martial arts?

As far as I know, the results are not guaranteed, but the likelihoods are increased.

You can attack the "increased likelihoods" as a confirmation bias that has not been scientifically proven, but I think you are missing out on a good skill because of your absolutist approach.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Wow a practical NTJ. I was starting to forget you guys existed.

 

[ajblaise]

Any repetition can induce a trance.

Advertising takes advantage of this and keeps repeating ads over and over again - and it works - billions of dollars every year are spent on just this kind of advertising.

And propaganda takes similar advantage of repetition to induce a trance.

But why do advertising and propaganda wish to put us in a trance?

And the answer is because in a trance our critical faculties go to sleep and we are susceptible to the suggestions of the advertisers and the propagandists.

And that is why MBTI is repeated over and over again here. And it is so lovingly repeated because the sheer repetition puts us into an uncritical trance.

And it is this uncritical trance that is so beloved by the scamsters.

And we have here office bearers of this site who have been repeating MBTI over and over again for many years.

And every now and then they reveal their spite towards anyone who seeks to wake us up from the MBTI trance.

But they are relentless because they themselves are in a deep trance, and deeply and profoundly resent anyone trying to wake them up.

And, incidentally, the best way to put someone in a trance is to enter a trance yourself. And the only better way to put someone in a trance is to put the group in a trance first and then the individual follows along. And that is just what happen here.

But the price you pay for the MBTI trance, for the MBTI scam, is your self respect.

But the beauty of it is, that in a trance, you don't notice the loss.

Ohhhh such an INFP.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ OMG PROVE 100% OBJECTIVELY THAT HE'S INFP

UNTIL THEN YOU ARE USELESSSSSSSSSSSS

 

[Edgar]

^ OMG PROVE 100% OBJECTIVELY THAT HE'S INFP

UNTIL THEN YOU ARE USELESSSSSSSSSSSS

A girl once invited me out on a date, but she could not conclusively prove to me that she will be there waiting for me in the coffee shop like she has promised, so I turned her down, stayed home, and jerked off instead.

 

[jenocyde]

A girl once invited me out on a date, but she could not conclusively prove to me that she will be there waiting for me in the coffee shop like she has promised, so I turned her down, stayed home, and jerked off instead.

that does sound like something you would do...

 

[Edgar]

that does sound like something you would do...

I am a scientist, not a mindless speculator.

Scientists prefer jerking off because it is the most reliable method of sexual stimulation.

 

[Splittet]

You can't make direct statements about reality regarding the way other people perceive and interpret data, because you don't have access to their subjective experience. You can make inductive guesses by inferring what potential motivations *might* be, but that is all.

MBTI is a kind of personal theory, and it's very similar to art in that the connections it's looking for are often abstract to the point of being largely open to interpretation.

This is based on the false assumption you can only study that which you can see, which is completely false. Do you doubt the existence of atoms, just because scientists can't see them? How do I know that the psychological structure of people are fundamentally similar? Because of evolution through natural selection. Just like our bodies fundamentally functions very similarly, our brains does as well.

Would you say that a person trained in aikido is more likely to effectively deal with a hostile stranger than a person who is completely ignorant of all martial arts?

As far as I know, the results are not guaranteed, but the likelihoods are increased.

You can attack the "increased likelihoods" as a confirmation bias that has not been scientifically proven, but I think you are missing out on a good skill because of your absolutist approach.

What to say about this ludicrous analogy? Do I think one better understand human beings by being trained in psychology? Yes, but there is only a point to this training if the skill is relevant (the theory is good). If the theory is bullshit, it's like learning a non-relevant skill.