Are we boxing ourselves in with MBTI?

[Delta223]

Although it's very simplistic, the most helpful aspects of typology for me have been J/P and N/S.


Knowing that someone is an MBTI I/E or F/T hasn't helped me to understand anyone, because the way they work in MBTI does not reflect reality for me.


But I see N/S and J/P differences repeatedly play out in life, and taking notice of this helps me to be more informed about human tendencies. I'm really grateful for this knowledge, because it has proven its use.


For self-improvement and self-awareness, MBTI has been useless for me. Enneagram has been more helpful for that.

I can't take Enneagram seriously. As far as getting more usefulness out of N/S and J/P, that's interesting but I don't think you can be selective about it. I/E seems to be the most obvious characteristic, and ignoring F/T knocks out 2 of the main personality groups.

 

[Kalach]

Fuckers.

Y'all are applying your liberal ideas in the wrong place. One isn't liberated by saying MBTI is *just* a theory and *just* one theory at that. That, roughly, is to liberation what turning off the electricity is to illumination. And y'all are being liberal like that because you've got some other torch hidden in your pants and you know you don't have to worry about losing *just* another theory.

Me? I run on introverted intuition. I like having place markers and tags on which to hang growing bundles of ideas and understandings. I get all liberal by saying not that Jung's pronouncements box me in, but that Jung started the ball rolling. I'm allowed to add perceptions, and accrete understanding.

Unless you nerds go all, like, man, we have a toolbox. Toolbox--pfft! What you have is your own preference for dealing with information and a desire to protect your cognitive turf. That this horseshit actually is understandable given MBTI concepts at the very least illustrates the utility of this box we're all boxed in to.



And people claiming errant types for themselves are screwing the datasets. Get back in your boxes, chocolates!

 

[Biaxident]

And people claiming errant types for themselves are screwing the datasets.

That's my job. And I enjoy it.

Get back in your boxes, chocolates!

Go climb in your own damn box. I'll be sure to staple the lid shut, so you can never get out again.

 

[Kalach]

Ne types are loud about how good it is to screw with datasets, how change and novelty and new perspectives are not just needed, they are lifegiving.

Fine.

But how about we screw with the Ne datasets. What would undermine Si, huh?

How about something an INTJ would be okay with:

To make progress it is unnecessary to consider past events. All that is needed is a vision of things to come and some instruments to hand. Yesterday is not just gone, it is without meaning and dwelling there strips action of purpose.

Thus, if you wish to understand what you should do, you should where possible avoid any and all recollection of detailed pasts.


Sweet?

 

[_Violence_]

MBTI is based on an enclosed system (the MBTI system!) and of course, there will be inconsistencies and loopholes.

It is best used, IMHO, as a reference to understanding, or attempting to codify human behavior and patterns.

I don't know how "accurate" it is, but I don't think we can determine any statistical value; it would seem to me that the "accuracy" of MBTI would fluctuate on an individual basis, based on their interpretation to the questions given. Same with enneagrams, etc.

As for me, there is not enough empirical/physical evidence to support many claims within psychology. That is to be expected, however, it is not an exact/hard science as per physics or biology. Much has to be based off of observations (whether direct or indirect), and assumptions based on behavioral patterns.

However, actual empirical tests conducted in enclosed environments with precisely controlled variables is impossible to perform. Personally, I take everything with a grain of salt if there is not empirical evidence to support the claims. MBTI is interesting to think about, however.

Also to consider - We DO NOT exist within vacuums and enclosed environments. I think it is a tad arrogant to say, the reality of human psychology is as simple as the MBTI system.

 

[Fluffywolf]

To OP's question:

In theory, no. If there is any truth to MBTI it is that we do what we feel or think is right according to our cognative functions. And thus wether or not we trust in MBTI, we will still be, and remain, our unique selves.

But it's not unthinkable that influence from knowledge about MBTI makes us more influencable towards the notions of types. And thus causes us to adapt in small ways to MBTI.

Ironically though, even through adaption, we will still remain ourselves.

 

[sculpting]

I agreed with the vast majority of the MBTI as it related to me... but at the same time I see a common complaint that it conditions us to put labels on people instead of see them for the unique individuals they really are.


What do you guys think of this? Frankly I'm confused. We can not have the MBTI be too artifical to be true, and yet accurate at the same time. MBTI either accurately portrays the human condition or it doesn't.

I think the MBTI letters are flawed. The jungian functions are better.

So assume the 16 basic patterns of jungian functions which reps the 16 types.

Then assume you have variants in each type taking an ENFP, NeFiTe as an example:
1. normal NeFiTe
2. Overdevelopment of tertiary NeTeFi
3. No development of tertiary NeFi
4. Development of supplemental functions via enviornmental osmosis or meditation or whatever. Any of the above three possibilities plus a toolbox of other functions.

So that's 16 X 4=64 types. Assume some other unique folks out there who really have acquired or were born with weird combos of functions.

So maybe 60% percent of folks cleanly fall into the "normal subtype" of the 16 types, another 30% fall into option 2 or 3 which could be considered different, and the last 10% fall into subtype 4 or the oddly combined function box.

I love boxes (Te) but if the boxes dont fit that means something is fucked up and you need to modify the boxes. Unlike my INTJ conservative comrade in the black leather jacket, I endlessly create my own new boxes. Why not?

 

[Jaguar]

Unlike my INTJ conservative comrade in the black leather jacket, I endlessly create my own new boxes. Why not?

It's too difficult for some to imagine other possibilities.

 

[Kalach]

Look at you guys with your possibilities. Name one.

The biggest one you've got going for you is "there might be other arrangements of functions". You do realise that still MBTI, right? It's the "16 types + fuckups" developmental model of MBTI.

I was thinking about it the other day: as INTJ, and seeing more and more clearly each day that the INTJ model applies, am I wearing the MBTi sunglasses and seeing only what they offer or is MBTI true and I'm seeing strengths that were there anyway to be consciously developed? Guess which answer I choose.

Name a better possibility, you retards. You are NOT critiquing this model in the right way if the best you got is, gee, well, something else might be possible, knowadimeen?

Pick up the ball and run with it or shun the ball for being round, your choice.



EDIT: ahhh okay, I'm being too religious.

But see, it has the holy grail: utility. A lot of real world phenomena appears verifiably explained. That's what I don't get about people saying it isn't verifiable: stuff plays out in real life like type theory says it will. At least, it does in some positive cases. It isn't verifiably complete as a model, nor is its actual level of depth verifiable, but this "toolbox" people speak of... if there was an actual toolbox, there'd be tools to asses the depth and applicability of MBTI too, the tools would be comparable. Are they? If they were, wouldn't we have a measure of MBTI as a tool that apparently we don't have.

Learn to love the uncertainty of application. All this business of claiming other tools is just loving uncertainty in your own special cognitively approved fashion. Make a choice and Go!


Wheee, look at me being all auxiliary Te about theory making. See how it's me choosing consciously to use Te as an auxiliary to introverted possibility? Me saying, wow, possibilities, choose one and see what happens. Maybe MBTI only works for INTJs.

 

[Jaguar]

EDIT: ahhh okay, I'm being too religious.

When I think INTJ, for some reason your name never enters my mind.

 

[Kalach]

I dunno, jag. Being religious about a vision is kinda textbook INTJ, innit? (Especially a mechanistic vision of the world out there.)

Just like retaining the right to make final calls about the world out there is text book EXTJ. And refusing to commit to a given theory is textbook NP. And so on.

 

[highlander]

Look at you guys with your possibilities. Name one.

The biggest one you've got going for you is "there might be other arrangements of functions". You do realise that still MBTI, right? It's the "16 types + fuckups" developmental model of MBTI.

I was thinking about it the other day: as INTJ, and seeing more and more clearly each day that the INTJ model applies, am I wearing the MBTi sunglasses and seeing only what they offer or is MBTI true and I'm seeing strengths that were there anyway to be consciously developed? Guess which answer I choose.

Name a better possibility, you retards. You are NOT critiquing this model in the right way if the best you got is, gee, well, something else might be possible, knowadimeen?

Pick up the ball and run with it or shun the ball for being round, your choice.



EDIT: ahhh okay, I'm being too religious.

But see, it has the holy grail: utility. A lot of real world phenomena appears verifiably explained. That's what I don't get about people saying it isn't verifiable: stuff plays out in real life like type theory says it will. At least, it does in some positive cases. It isn't verifiably complete as a model, nor is its actual level of depth verifiable, but this "toolbox" people speak of... if there was an actual toolbox, there'd be tools to asses the depth and applicability of MBTI too, the tools would be comparable. Are they? If they were, wouldn't we have a measure of MBTI as a tool that apparently we don't have.

Learn to love the uncertainty of application. All this business of claiming other tools is just loving uncertainty in your own special cognitively approved fashion. Make a choice and Go!


Wheee, look at me being all auxiliary Te about theory making. See how it's me choosing consciously to use Te as an auxiliary to introverted possibility? Me saying, wow, possibilities, choose one and see what happens. Maybe MBTI only works for INTJs.

I've looked at lots of these things - Brainstyles, FIRO-B, The Platinum Rule, Now Discover Your Strengths, etc. etc. What I know is that MBTI for the most part, pretty much works. There is more information behind it than anything else out there, making it more practically useful. I do think the MBTI STEP 2 goes to a bit more depth as an assessment instrument. When I first took an MBTI, I was INTJ but felt there was a "touch of SP" in there. It was validated by some of the scores in the MBTI STEP 2 many years later.

For me, the only thing that matters is whether it seems conceptually sound, does it actually work and does it provide value. It doesn't need to be perfect. I could add boxes on my own and invent something new, but I don't really have the time nor do I wish to expend the energy to validate something different.

 

[sleepy]

Na..I look at this like fun, like how you dress up. Pick something you like, that makes you feel nice.

It's like a role playing game.

I would not want to believe in this, not like for realz. I like my fluidity . You can make water into ice if you just believe in this hard enough. I would not wanna do that.

 

[Mole]

I agreed with the vast majority of the MBTI as it related to me... but at the same time I see a common complaint that it conditions us to put labels on people instead of see them for the unique individuals they really are.

What do you guys think of this? Frankly I'm confused. We can not have the MBTI be too artifical to be true, and yet accurate at the same time. MBTI either accurately portrays the human condition or it doesn't.

The problem is that MBTI is a pre-scientific. And MBTI is pre-scientific along with astrology and alchemy.

Astrology, alchemy and MBTI are pre-Enlightenment, while astronomy, chemistry and psychometrics are post-Enlightenment.

We can all plainly see that the sun goes round the earth, but astronomy shows us that the earth goes round the sun.

And in the same way MBTI and astrology plainly appear to tell us about our personalities and our relationships. But they no more tell us about ourselves than the sun goes round the earth.

The reality is that MBTI is a popular pre-Enlightenment cult that was first used to manipulate women into the war machine during WW II, and has been used by the military to manipulate recruits ever since.

And seeing how successful MBTI was in manipulating recruits, business has used it since WW II to manipulate employees.

However no university will teach MBTI anymore than any university will teach astrology.

 

[simulatedworld]

This has been answered approximately 89496489643 times. If you're boxing people in you're using typology incorrectly.

 

[C.J.Woolf]

This has been answered approximately 89496489643 times. If you're boxing people in you're using typology incorrectly.

You beat me to it.

Ideally typology, whether it be MBTI, Enneagram, or whatever, helps you (a) recognize that you were boxing yourself in without knowing it, (b) understand the nature of the box, and (c) find ways to get out of the box.

If you try to use typology to size up other people you're more likely to go wrong.

 

[highlander]

You beat me to it.

Ideally typology, whether it be MBTI, Enneagram, or whatever, helps you (a) recognize that you were boxing yourself in without knowing it, (b) understand the nature of the box, and (c) find ways to get out of the box.

If you try to use typology to size up other people you're more likely to go wrong.

Maybe you're right, ideally, but this seems horribly limiting.

And as to the person who said business uses MBTI to "manipulate" people, in my experience, businesses don't care about this stuff at all. They don't really care about people's uniqueness. They care about performance and making money. Those who are well rounded, where it is difficult to tell what their type is, are often the most exceptional performers at work.

In either case, very interesting thread.