The Scam of the MBTI Trance

[Mole]

You really have a gift for hyperbole. In fact, an admin at this site (that would be me) has responded in partial agreement with you. I daresay if this thread posed a thread to the site in any way it would have been deleted by Haight already.

"Most people" don't post on typology forums, this one or any other. Most people are either unaware it exists, know about it but don't really care, or know about it and care a little. People invested enough in any kind of typology to discuss it on the internet are pretty few and far between, I'd think.

MBTI fits perfectly into the culture of commodification.

We live in a consumer culture where everything has been commodified for sale.

So how natural to commodify human beings as well.

And of course MBTI sorts us and brands us with, God help us, four letters, just as the Jews were tattooed on their wrists.

And being sorted and branded we can be manipulated and disposed of.

Every item you buy at the supermarket has a barcode, and now thanks to MBTI, I have a barcode as well - INFP.

My barcode tells you all you need to know about my psyche in order to manipulate me.

My barcode turns me into a means rather than an end.

But the truth is that I am an end in myself.

 

[Jaguar]

In fact this thread is a direct threat to the power structure of this site.

This thread is a direct threat to those with a vested interest in MBTI

This thread is as "threatening" as a used condom.

 

[Mole]

The Settlement

This thread is as "threatening" as a used condom.

Of course it is threatening at the intellectual level.

It presents an alternative viewpoint to MBTI.

And the way to end any trance is not to try to end it, but to introduce an extraneous element into the trance, and the particular trance will peter out by itself.

So I would not dare to try to end the MBTI trance here, because it would have the opposite effect and make the trance stronger.

No, I simply introduce an extraneous point of view.

And already some here have taken up this meme and are repeating it.

But from a believers point of view, this extraneous meme is a virus which can only grow and spread.

However it is very important not to back the tiger of MBTI into a corner, otherwise he will tear you to pieces.

No, you always give a cornered tiger a way out.

And the way out is our new masthead which says, "Typology Central".

In this way the tiger can save his face by calling himself, "A Typologist", without repudiating MBTI.

And as a further face saver, we allow him to keep under the masthead the legend, "A Personality Type Indicator Community".

And we can't offer better than that.

And further, I think we should call this, "The Typology Central Settlement".

 

[Frank]

Is that why there are 118 posts on this thread - because on one cares about it?

In fact this thread is a direct threat to the power structure of this site.

This thread is a direct threat to those with a vested interest in MBTI.

And naturally they have responded to the threat - just as your immune system responds to the threat of an infection.

In fact what we are looking at is an emotional immune response to cognitive dissonance.

For some are for MBTI and some against - and this produces cognitive dissonance.

And cognitive dissonance produces emotional pain which mobilises the emotional immune response of denial, rationalisation and finally insults.

But we must remember that cognitive dissonance is a sign that learning is taking place.

Sure, learning is painful - like stretching an unused muscle.

And taking part in the adventure of learning leads to discovery and understanding.

Who could wish for anything more?

I don't think it is that serious. I know what your response will be, but still I don't.

 

[Mole]

I don't think it is that serious. I know what your response will be, but still I don't.

I hardly need to respond if you already know.

And as you know, millions upon millions of people, perhaps hundreds of millions or even more, think astrology is not that serious.

But no astronomer in the entire world believes in astrology.

This is an extraordinary cognitive dissonance that is crying out for an explanation.

And to say that it is not that serious and you know what I will say, seems to me to be denial, rationalisation and even a hint of insult, in the face of the emotional pain of cognitive dissonance.

I don't know why you don't get bored with your lack of curiosity.

All I can suggest is that you are emotionally comfortable in your MBTI trance.

 

[simulatedworld]

This is based on the false assumption you can only study that which you can see, which is completely false.

Well, it's good to know that false assumptions are completely false. It's also good to know that I don't actually believe, nor have I ever said or implied, that I believe we can study only that which we can see.

It's based on the correct assumption that in the grand scheme of things, we don't really know that much about the human brain just yet. Emotions are only vaguely understood as caused by certain chemical reactions, but our understanding of the way they interact to create which human behaviors is shaky at best.

Of course psychoanalysis *can* be helpful to some people for sorting out their emotional problems, but then again, we can't objectively measure the results for scientific verification, so screw it.

Remember, with MBTI we don't explain behavior so much as categorize it, according to arbitrary standards that are totally made up. These standards vary from person to person and therefore are strictly subjective from person to person.

If science finds a way to objectively prove that the four statements mentioned earlier are untrue--that is, that people don't really prefer introversion to extroversion or logical judgment to emotional--I would be absolutely stunned, as I assumed this was intuitively obvious to everyone.

Nobody is claiming that there are precise biological mechanisms in the brain that correspond linearly to these preference ideas--we just observe and categorize for future reference. You and everyone else already do the same things I'm doing when I use typology; I just happen to use a different naming system.

But if that were to happen, I'd give up MBTI.

Seriously Te, pipe down--you don't always need an objectively measurable goal to make something worth considering. Note that I say considering, because MBTI is only one of many possible interpretations from which to draw influence on one's own belief system regarding personal interactions. I know, I know--Te comes screaming in again, to the tragic exclusion of Ni, to remind us how OMG I CAN'T PUT IT IN A TEST TUBE AND RECORD THE QUANTITY IT'S INVALID LOLZ

Grow some Ne/Ti.

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.

Irrelevant straw man; see above.

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.

Ahhh, and finally we arrive at the crux of the Te overload argument against MTBI.

"If it's not objectively measurable, why do you bother?"

And I'm afraid that's something nobody can really quite explain to you, if you don't already intuitively get it.

Try to understand that for Ne+Ti (or whatever you want to call external abstract pattern perception+internally consistent framework for comparison to future data), it doesn't matter if there's any objectively measureable goal--considering a different perspective actually IS an end unto itself.

We like solving puzzles and making connections, and we leave no stone unturned. Ne+Ti=Low productivity, high chance of breakthrough.

Ni+Te=vice versa.

Because I am bored, because I love psychology and discussing it, because MBTI has sentimental value to me, and because there is some usefulness in viewing MBTI is a weak version of Big Five. The correlations are medium-high on the dimensions... I am an addict to applying theory, to seeing connections, and that's what I get out of it.

Seriously? You already understand this and you're still keeping up this silly "omg it's not science" argument? Who are you trying to convince here, anyway?

Let me get this straight, though--your only real argument is that we should use Big 5 for these purposes instead of MBTI, because it adds one more dimension and is therefore marginally more descriptive?

So...all the shit about how it's useless if not scientifically verifiable...? You don't even believe that? Or is Big 5 somehow science?

I'm honestly a little confused now.

 

[Splittet]

It's based on the correct assumption that in the grand scheme of things, we don't really know that much about the human brain just yet. Emotions are only vaguely understood as caused by certain chemical reactions, but our understanding of the way they interact to create which human behaviors is shaky at best.

Human beings are very complex, but we still have plenty of knowledge, I should know, studying psychology. Have you studied psychology? If you haven't, how can you evaluate what we know or don't know?

Of course psychoanalysis *can* be helpful to some people for sorting out their emotional problems, but then again, we can't objectively measure the results for scientific verification, so screw it.

And psychoanalysis can be unhelpful. It's utter bullshit. Some parts are more ridiculous that others, of course, but I do take issue with the negative view of human nature and so on. Take for example the catharsis hypothesis. If you have anger issues, you might try to relieve the anger through playing violent video games. Psychoanalysis suggests that should make you less violent. Not so! It's like using gasoline to put out a fire. The catharsis hypothesis has been proved false to death by psychology by now. Just one example of the knowledge we have about human emotions. There is a reason why psychoanalysis is considered to mostly be of historical interest, and in complete contrast to psychoanalsysis modern psychology are based on sound quantitative methods.

Let me get this straight, though--your only real argument is that we should use Big 5 for these purposes instead of MBTI, because it adds one more dimension and is therefore marginally more descriptive?

So...all the shit about how it's useless if not scientifically verifiable...? You don't even believe that? Or is Big 5 somehow science?

I'm honestly a little confused now.

Big 5 is indeed somehow science, and I described to you how scientists arrived at it, using the lexical and statistical approaches. That's why it's so much better than MBTI, because it's based on sound methods. People differ in a million ways, and the task of scientists in the dispositional domain of personality psychology is to find out which are the most fundamental, to find the structure of traits and sub-traits. When MBTI is leaving out the fundamental trait neuroticism, that's not to be taken lightly, it's a glaring gap in the taxonomy. It's simply the death of the theory, it's not complete enough. Extroversion and neuroticism are the two most agreed-upon traits.

 

[Jaguar]

Of course it is threatening at the intellectual level.

It presents an alternative viewpoint to MBTI.

Why don't you delete INFP from your profile?

 

[Frank]

I hardly need to respond if you already know.

And as you know, millions upon millions of people, perhaps hundreds of millions or even more, think astrology is not that serious.

But no astronomer in the entire world believes in astrology.

This is an extraordinary cognitive dissonance that is crying out for an explanation.

And to say that it is not that serious and you know what I will say, seems to me to be denial, rationalisation and even a hint of insult, in the face of the emotional pain of cognitive dissonance.

I don't know why you don't get bored with your lack of curiosity.

All I can suggest is that you are emotionally comfortable in your MBTI trance.

Perhaps if I took this stuff more seriously I would get where your coming from. Personally I take very little at face value without some verification and experimentation on my part. My experience with MBTI is that it is mostly horse shit. I take what is useful to me and I move on.

 

[Mole]

Why don't you delete INFP from your profile?

What can I say?

A projection is a gift.

INFP has been projected onto me and I honour the gift.

Sometimes a little child will give me a gift - it can be anything - usually small and irrelevant - but I always accept a gift from a small child with a smile - and give something immediately back.

I understand that when a small child is spontaneously giving me a gift, they are offering themselves. So the least I can do is offer myself back.

It may well be that the gifts are completely worthless, but it is the gift giving that I honour.

And of course at a deeper level the gift symbolizes ourselves, so to reject a gift is to reject the other person, the gift giver.

And to accept a gift is to accept the other person. And to give a gift is to ask the other person to accept you.

So I wear the albatross of INFP around my neck so the gift giver may fly.

 

[Frank]

Is this gift giver the same scamster brainwashing the unknowing masses with their typology? Victor, I'm beginning to think your playing with us

 

[simulatedworld]

Human beings are very complex, but we still have plenty of knowledge, I should know, studying psychology. Have you studied psychology? If you haven't, how can you evaluate what we know or don't know?

I took a few psychology courses at the undergrad level. Nothing extremely in depth, but I did get the impression that some fields of psychology are still not understood sufficiently to escape the problem of subjective interpretation just yet.

Until we can fully and completely explain every process involved in every second of human behavior, and therefore effectively predict it perfectly, there will still be use for such subjective comparison systems as MBTI. We're just working with such vague labels here that you can't expect more than that.

And psychoanalysis can be unhelpful. It's utter bullshit. Some parts are more ridiculous that others, of course, but I do take issue with the negative view of human nature and so on. Take for example the catharsis hypothesis. If you have anger issues, you might try to relieve the anger through playing violent video games. Psychoanalysis suggests that should make you less violent. Not so! It's like using gasoline to put out a fire. The catharsis hypothesis has been proved false to death by psychology by now. Just one example of the knowledge we have about human emotions. There is a reason why psychoanalysis is considered to mostly be of historical interest, and in complete contrast to psychoanalsysis modern psychology are based on sound quantitative methods.

I mean psychoanalysis as a more general term covering all forms of psychiatric treatment that are based purely on discussion with a psychiatric/psychological professional (as opposed to medication or other physically applied medicine.) Not really referring to the precise methods of Freud.

My mistake for not specifying, but the point should be obvious--not all perspectives worth considering are objectively quantifiable. The *modern* interpretation of MBTI, as far as I can tell from the material I've read on it, doesn't purport to be scientific, and serves a different purpose altogether.

Big 5 is indeed somehow science, and I described to you how scientists arrived at it, using the lexical and statistical approaches. That's why it's so much better than MBTI, because it's based on sound methods. People differ in a million ways, and the task of scientists in the dispositional domain of personality psychology is to find out which are the most fundamental, to find the structure of traits and sub-traits. When MBTI is leaving out the fundamental trait neuroticism, that's not to be taken lightly, it's a glaring gap in the taxonomy. It's simply the death of the theory, it's not complete enough. Extroversion and neuroticism are the two most agreed-upon traits.

If Big 5 is a truly scientifically consistent model of personality theory (which I doubt, or it would be taught ubiquitously in psychology courses), then it doesn't even serve the same purpose as MBTI because MBTI's purpose is purely subjective.

You Te doms really don't get this "subjective" thing at all, do you?

 

[Splittet]

If Big 5 is a truly scientifically consistent model of personality theory (which I doubt, or it would be taught ubiquitously in psychology courses), then it doesn't even serve the same purpose as MBTI because MBTI's purpose is purely subjective.

I can promise you it is taught in every serious personality psychology course in the world. The field of psychology is however massive, so it won't be a part of every psychology course. A course that teaches MBTI, but not Big 5, must be a bad course, completely out of touch with the current field of psychology.

You Te doms really don't get this "subjective" thing at all, do you?

"Subjective" in what sense? In the same sense as astrology? I see the usefulness in neither, although I see confirmation bias and perceived usefulness. Or are you saying people accommodate MBTI into the models they use for predicting and understanding others? And sure they can find that useful, but that doesn't mean it really makes them better at understanding others. And if they became better, it wouldn't necessarily be because of MBTI, but it might just be more awareness. That being said, there is some usefulness in using MBTI in a Big 5 like fashion, although it's not as good.

 

[simulatedworld]

I can promise you it is taught in every serious personality psychology course in the world. The field of psychology is however massive, so it won't be a part of every psychology course. A course that teaches MBTI, but not Big 5, must be a bad course, completely out of touch with the current field of psychology.

Really? I suppose you ought to write letters to a lot of professors, then, mine included. I'm sure they're all just uneducated hacks, though, in comparison to a person of such intellectual stature as yourself.

That being said, there is some usefulness in using MBTI in a Big 5 like fashion, although it's not as good.

Oh? How can there be ANY usefulness without objective verification???

"Subjective" in what sense? In the same sense as astrology? I see the usefulness in neither, although I see confirmation bias and perceived usefulness.

No, no, no, and no. MBTI isn't even conceptually similar to astrology.

Astrology attempts objectivity and fails miserably because it clearly and objectively defines its categories according to birth date, and then makes up nonsense that, supposedly, all people with x DOB will behave similarly in y way, etc. etc.

MBTI makes no attempt at establishing any such correlation. There is a clear difference in form here because MBTI's categorizations are arbitrary and subjective, and vary from person to person. There's no objective definition of what an INFJ is, only a general consensus by people who've arbitrarily defined it however they want. There is, however, a clear objective definition of a Taurus--it's necessarily everyone born between date x and date y. MBTI doesn't use any clear cut, measurable data like that.

Astrology bluntly declares that there are common behavioral threads between people who have random, irrelevant demographics in common. MBTI makes no such claim; it simply suggests that common behavioral patterns do exist between people, and that these arbitrarily chosen letters might be helpful to consider in forming your own personality archetypes to compare other people to.

MBTI isn't even useful for every personality out there--if one displays very moderated behavior on two or more of the four scales, then clearly very little added predictability or comprehension is gained. If you're going to use subjective systems like this, you have to know when NOT to trust them.

Once again, there's never any claim of anything objectively verifiable. People test into different types than they previously had all the time; the only use is in creating imaginary archetypes by which to group people and compare their perceived tendencies. Besides, changing my perception of you from ISTJ to ISFJ doesn't invalidate everything I already gained--the two are conceptually similar archetypes. If the types weren't supposed to have apparent similarities, they wouldn't be named with letters that suggest characteristics in common between types.

Your use of the term "perceived usefulness" displays a fundamentally different perspective on what's "useful" than that of MBTI fans. For Ne, simply comparing various possible interpretations is an end unto itself; it doesn't matter if we accomplish any objectively verifiable goals in the external world. Just looking for common threads and placing them into mental frameworks gets us off, and that's good enough. Comprehending any possible interpretation of observed patterns IS a goal on its own!

If you don't get the value in this, just give up, take the INTJ out of your profile and stop posting on message boards devoted to a virtually useless concept.

 

[Jaguar]

A projection is a gift.

INFP has been projected onto me and I honour the gift.
So I wear the albatross of INFP around my neck so the gift giver may fly.

Enough of the evasive double-talk, Victor.
Cut your martini intake by half.

 

[heart]

^ Madeira seems to be more Victor's style?

 

[Jaguar]

Astrology bluntly declares that there are common behavioral threads between people who have random, irrelevant demographics in common.

No, you bluntly declare that.

Say, 10 people are born 1-1-1971 at 6:06 A.M. Atlanta, Georgia.
It's a specific month, day, year, time, latitude and longitude.
There is nothing "random" about the birth data.

In order to attack something,
it would behoove you to know what you are talking about.
Clearly you do not.
You suggest Astrology=Sun sign alone.
That's grossly incorrect.

MBTI [...] simply suggests that common behavioral patterns do exist between people, and that these arbitrarily chosen letters might be helpful to consider in forming your own personality archetypes to compare other people to.

Again, you are grossly incorrect.
MBTI claims: A SPECIFIC AND PREDETERMINED JUNGIAN FUNCTION ORDER FOR EACH TYPE. .

You choose to turn a blind eye to the facts,
to serve your own purpose.

Besides, changing my perception of you from ISTJ to ISFJ doesn't invalidate everything I already gained--the two are conceptually similar archetypes. If the types weren't supposed to have apparent similarities, they wouldn't be named with letters that suggest characteristics in common between types.

All day you have been calling that guy a dom Te.
Now you are calling him an ISTJ or ISFJ?
Those types don't even have dom Te.

If you don't get the value in this, just give up, take the INTJ out of your profile and stop posting on message boards devoted to a virtually useless concept.

This is not MBTI Central. It is Typology Central.

What's odd is you harassing the INTJ all day,
knowing full well you don't even support MBTI.
There is no MBTI without the Jungian functions.
That fact will never change.

You constantly refer to the Jungian functions when they serve your purpose,
such as making snide remarks about Te.

Do you think Jungian functions have value or not?
Do you think Jung was a knowledgeable psychologist or not?

Make up your mind.
Have some consistency of thought.

 

[Mole]

Enough of the double-talk, Victor.

I would prefer double-barrelled.

However when I say -

So I wear the INFP albatross around my neck so the gift giver may fly.

Any sailor will know to kill an albatross brings the very worst of bad luck at sea. And bad luck at sea is very bad indeed.

Killing an albatross is not only an offence against the albatross, but an offence against the God of the Sea, Poseidon.

But worse, killing an albatross is an offence against beauty, which is unforgivable.

So any sailor who kills an albatross is condemned to wear the albatross around his neck for the rest of his life.

So what could possibly compensate anyone for wearing an albatross around his neck?

Having killed beauty on the wing, the only response is to give wing to the gift giver, the life taker.

As one bird dies, another takes to the skies.

 

[Ivy]

Somebody read the Rime of the Ancient Mariner today.

 

[Jaguar]

^ Madeira seems to be more Victor's style?

If drinking Madeira can get Victor ol' boy to spew forth that kind of drivel,
that's a wild-assed substance.