I think MBTI is full of it.

[fill]

One of the greatest Presidents of the USA, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his last speech to the nation warned us of the military/industrial complex.

And here am I, simply repeating his last warning to the nation, and you scoff at me.

Cool. I miss the 50s as well.

My case may be an anomaly, unless you don't believe those exist.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Um, no. The statements "Every INFP thinks that they are untypeable" and "Every person who thinks they are untypeable is INFP" are not congruent and never will be.

Exactly. Glad I'm not the only one who saw that.

More than half of the world never heard of MBTI. And more than half of the people that heard of MBTI have no friggin clue on how it works.

Yeah. You're right. I just think it's kind of dumb that anyone who says they can't be typed gets cast as an INFP. But then it's kind of hard to tell if people are just joking when they say that or if they take it seriously. I realize this is kind of a social game for some people so maybe it's also like an experiment, but it just screams constructive criticism to point it out. It would be like if I created a two-type system and put myself in one type and everyone else in the other type just because they all think they can be both types whereas I might think I can only be one type. This is bad design though because it's completely dependent on what one person accepts as absolute truth for themselves and others and casts that onto their type, thereby affecting the other types by automatic and logically incorrect default. By doing this the observation of other types (other than INFP in this case) deeming themselves un-typable automatically becomes impossible without really knowing if it is impossible, it's logically implied and assumed to be true that other types can't see themselves as un-typable. Now if you want to distinguish between these characteristics then another typology system might be in order, or perhaps an addendum to MBTI to account for this in each type. Otherwise it's nothing more than joke fodder if assuming it to be true automatically affects the other types. This could be solved by categorizing that all types can think they are typable and un-typable. Then there is no room for error, even if what you say might be true.

*I guess un-typable wasn't a word. Well I just made it one.

 

[simulatedworld]

Why? Because I've willingly made changes to my personality from INFP to INFJ to ENTP, now closer to ENTJ, simply so I can succeed in different areas in life more efficiently.

No you haven't. "I've learned to understand feelings better" =/= F type; "I've learned to plan and schedule my life better" =/= J type; etc. etc.

You haven't changed types at all; you just don't know your type because you have no idea how Jungian functions work or what any of this means.

To start with: Each function is a different overall mindset or attitude regarding the nature of your relationship to reality. You don't just completely redefine your conception of reality at will.

You may learn to use different skills that are not as natural for you, but this by no means constitutes changing types or switching functional mindsets.

The test is self-fulfilling, and I think it's easy to manipulate it to make it say what you want it to say. I think a test isn't good enough, and that objective analysis of one's life, current relationship with family and friends, behavior, etc. needs to take place for a legitimate assessment of what someone's preferred "type" happens to be.

Good call. Type tests are garbage. Psychological type is a complex idea that cannot be solved by a 20 minute internet questionnaire.

The only way to know your type is to study the archetypes and determine which fits you best. You do not change types and your test result means nothing.

A lot of people seem to think their Jungian type is defined by their test result, as if an INFP = "Someone who got INFP on this internet test." That's absurd. An INFP is someone with a mindset dominated by the cognitive approaches Fi and Ne (with Si and Te in the background.)

If you don't understand the nature of Fi and Ne, you don't know what an INFP is.

Either way, I can just about mimic any type I damned well pleased to get what I want. After about a month of acting out a type, I simply fall into it and "become it."

You can pretend to imitate the behaviors that are common to other types, but that isn't "changing types" at all.

To change type you'd have to completely throw out the values that make up your idea of yourself as a person and your conception of reality and replace them with totally different ones.

That's a far cry from just imitating other people's behaviors. Clearly you haven't yet learned that type is about mindset, value system and subconscious motivation--not surface action.

The fact that I can reprogram how I behave in a matter of weeks makes this indicator less and less useful as a source of insight to how I act and more as a tool to identify my behavior and manipulate it.

Who else has this problem?

Other people who don't know wtf Jungian typology is about.

"Reprogramming your behavior" doesn't change your type at all.

For instance I as an ENTP can force myself to phrase things in a more Fi-friendly way if I really want to get along with INFPs, but imitating what INFPs do doesn't make me an INFP unless I'm doing it for the same reason they do it.

If you're imitating other types' common behaviors just to prove to yourself that you can, or to serve some other goal posited by your primary functions, you are not changing type or using different functions at all.

The problem isn't the categories; it's your total failure to understand what they mean thus far.

 

[raz]

Sometimes watching other ISTJs makes me scratch my head, and then it makes me question the theory. I'm not and never will be a super organized person that keeps after every single detail around them to make sure it's straight. I have an organizer I keep after everyday, but I don't organize for the sake of "my life should be 100% kept in check." I organize to reach a goal that I care about.

But, in a way, it could go back to how Si works. I've learned many lessons about easy mistakes other ISxJs make that makes me refrain from doing a lot of common ISTJ things, like being super anal. Which really, the super anal type of SJs is a massive amount of extraverted judgment. The only real way I've learned to describe Si is tunnel vision.

Of the other 6 functions, I doubt I can fully comprehend how a dominant Ti, Fe, Fi, Se, Ne or Ni user functions mentally. Ni and Fe are the ones that boggle me the most. I just can't begin to understand how someone can use those functions. INxJs and ExFJs are confusing.

 

[simulatedworld]

But, in a way, it could go back to how Si works. I've learned many lessons about easy mistakes other ISxJs make that makes me refrain from doing a lot of common ISTJ things, like being super anal.

omg it's meta-Si, awesome

 

[fill]

You don't just completely redefine your conception of reality at will.

Why?

You may learn to use different skills that are not as natural for you, but this by no means constitutes changing types or switching functional mindsets.

I agree with this.

You can pretend to imitate the behaviors that are common to other types, but that isn't "changing types" at all.

Still doesn't address my issue: imitation is not a part of it; it requires changing mindsets and perceptions of different environments.

To change type you'd have to completely throw out the values that make up your idea of yourself as a person and your conception of reality and replace them with totally different ones.

The Spirit of Athens: Ship X or Y?

For instance I as an ENTP can force myself to phrase things in a more Fi-friendly way if I really want to get along with INFPs, but imitating what INFPs do doesn't make me an INFP unless I'm doing it for the same reason they do it.

If you're imitating other types' common behaviors just to prove to yourself that you can, or to serve some other goal posited by your primary functions, you are not changing type or using different functions at all.

The problem isn't the categories; it's your total failure to understand what they mean thus far.

Maybe it is; or it could be the simple solution: I change a lot.

 

[simulatedworld]

Why?

If you don't understand this, then you're probably still stuck in the arrogant mindset that you're so amazingly unique/perceptive/miscellaneous that you can see every perspective on everything.

The human psyche builds its self-concept and its idea of the nature of reality upon certain fundamental "truths" which the self must consider true in order to uphold the ego's self-image.

When an idea comes along which threatens these truths, it is dismissed vehemently, as a form of defense mechanism.

You cannot simultaneously hold two conflicting ideas about the truth of the universe in equal esteem, because you would not have a coherent self image.


cognitive dissonance
 
–noun Psychology .
anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.

Still doesn't address my issue: imitation is not a part of it; it requires changing mindsets and perceptions of different environments.

On the contrary; imitation is the entirety of it.

You can change mindsets between your four function attitudes, as none of them contradict each other. They all come together to form a complete person (or at least they should, ideally.)

But you don't (or very rarely, at least) change mindsets into completely different types or into functions that don't inherently make sense to your mindset.

If you are an Fi type, for instance, your concept of the "truth" of morality is based upon an internal standard. You seek to find that which feels harmonious and ethical to you and you alone, in the greatest depth possible, because you see morality as an idea that can only be understood by the individual, from the inside.

The competing mindset here is called Fe, which is the idea that morality cannot be evaluated without some externalized context, without a collective consensus of the informed ("the informed" in this case being the people in the cultural/familial/social groups to which the Fe user feels emotionally connected.) The Fe user seeks a broader, more widely applicable moral standard which we can all agree will govern everyone in our group, which necessitates that we sacrifice the individualized depth of personal feeling that the Fi user requires from his conception of morality.

So you may sometimes do things that the Fe users around you agree with you are moral, but if you are an Fi user, this does not constitute "using Fe" because you did for a different reason.

The Fi user did it because "I felt it was the right thing to do, and for this reason it did not matter to me whether anyone else agreed", while the Fe user did it because, "We felt it was the right thing to do--it was in line with the collective standard by which my group defines itself and by which I define my relationship to the group and thus my moral identity, so whether or not I personally felt it was right did not matter because my connection to the group is of greater importance and I trust that the group is a greater moral authority than my personal feelings."

The idea that you've changed from INFP to INFJ would suggest that you've completely inverted your entire concept of the nature of morality (from a self-authority to a group-authority view) on a whim.

This would require the unraveling of everything you consider important about yourself and your approach to life and would generate such enormous cognitive dissonance that such a change would destroy your very sense of identity.

It's just not that simple.

The Spirit of Athens: Ship X or Y?

I am familiar with this thought exercise and it does not apply here. We're talking about the very building blocks upon which your whole value system is constructed. Changing type would be analogous to building a completely new ship out of completely new materials, not using the same materials to build a "different" ship.

Maybe it is; or it could be the simple solution: I change a lot.

Your ego is threatened by the idea that you aren't so smart/special/clever/unique that you are too multi-faceted not to have access to all the functions.

In reality, though, this only reveals that your multi-perspective development is at such an early stage that you have not yet accepted the ultimate limitations of perspective upon yourself.

I'm sure you change a lot, but you change within the parameters of the preferred functions of your type. If you think you are changing types routinely, you simply have not yet developed enough of a concept of the differences between types to make these distinctions accurately yet.

It's funny how dumb people (and I am not calling you dumb here) are too dumb to realize they don't know everything, while smart people are too smart to believe they do. When you find someone truly competent at anything, he'll always be the first to underrate his own abilities in areas with which he's unfamiliar.

He's perceptive enough to recognize that, while he may have attained high proficiency in one area, this implies that there is much greater possibility for development in so many other areas that he cannot possibly claim to have done so.

In short, the wise man recognizes the true extent of knowledge and is able to see by comparison that his own knowledge still leaves an enormous amount to be desired.

The unwise man believes himself to be wise because he is not yet aware of the extent to which knowledge itself expands far, far beyond the bounds of his conscious awareness.

 

[Mole]

The Noosphere is the Sphere of the New

[It] would be analogous to building a completely new ship out of completely new materials, not using the same materials to build a "different" ship.

Yeah, let's do it.

The old ship is sinking with all hands on board, but we are building a new ship with every post we make.

Naturally we are reluctant to leave the old ship. It has the advantage of familiarity. Hey, it's family. But the new ship is taking shape around us. All we need to do is limn the new shape as we build it.

Most of us are familiar with the new. Some of us live in New South Wales and some in New York. All we need to do is leave South Wales and York behind. And set sail for the New World. Hey, we are living in it already.

And just as Captain Cook, the worlds greatest navigator and explorer, navigated our way to the New World, so Marshall McLuhan, the patron saint of the internet, has navigated our way to the internet, to the noosphere, the new sphere.

The book guided us to the sphere of literacy, while the speed of light on the internet is guiding us into the safe harbour of the noosphere.

And just as Captain Cook sailed into Sydney Harbour, Captain Marshall McLuhan is sailing our ship into the noosphere.

And just as Sydney Harbour is the most beautiful harbour in the world, so is the noosphere.

 

[onemoretime]

Yeah, but York had a duke to go along with it. South Wales only has half a prince, and he's English.

 

[raz]

someone translate victorese please?

 

[Mole]

The Bunyip Aristocracy

Yeah, but York had a duke to go along with it. South Wales only has half a prince, and he's English.

Yeah, they tried to establish a landed gentry in Oz, but we laughed them out of court by calling it the Bunyip Aristocracy.

And the Bunyip is the only one laughing now.

And the Bunyip is laughing at the Types, slyly giggling at the ridiculous jargon, the pretension that we can understand ourselves by dividing us into Types.

What Type are you, says the Bunyip, I'm an INFP or is that an ESTJ. I can fiddle with Types just as Nero fiddled as Rome burnt. But the barbarians are at the gate. They seek to divide and conquer by dividing us into Types.

But I'm not a Type, I am not a number, I am not four magic letters, I am whole and wholesome, a Roman, ready to defend the Holy City of the Enlightenment.

 

[Mole]

someone translate victorese please?

Traduttore, Traditore - to translate is to betray.

And ressentiment seeks to betray us with Types.

 

[onemoretime]

Yeah, they tried to establish a landed gentry in Oz, but we laughed them out of court by calling it the Bunyip Aristocracy.

And the Bunyip is the only one laughing now.

And the Bunyip is laughing at the Types, slyly giggling at the ridiculous jargon, the pretension that we can understand ourselves by dividing us into Types.

What Type are you, says the Bunyip, I'm an INFP or is that an ESTJ. I can fiddle with Types just as Nero fiddled as Rome burnt. But the barbarians are at the gate. They seek to divide and conquer by dividing us into Types.

But I'm not a Type, I am not a number, I am not four magic letters, I am whole and wholesome, a Roman, ready to defend the Holy City of the Enlightenment.

Ave victoria victoresque. A true Cincinnatus of our time.

 

[BlueScreen]

MBTi and Jung's psychological types are the centerpiece of all psychology courses. You can't understand the human mind without them... This is highlighted on wikipedia, where MBTi is mentioned zero times under psychology and cognitive psychology, and Jung is mentioned twice under psychology and zero times under cognitive psychology. This is probably because Jung is the founder of analytical psychology and not cognitive psychology. Wikipedia also mentions that "Jungian ideas are routinely discussed in part by curriculum of introductory psychology course offerings with most major universities, and although rarely covered by higher level course work, his ideas are discussed further by the Faculty of Humanities." This seems to agree with my understanding of his work. It is often used by writers, script writers, journalists, career counsellors, business, etc. It is not the pinnacle of the psychology world, or cognitive studies.

 

[Mole]

MBTi and Jung's psychological types are the centerpiece of all psychology courses.

So far I have not been able to find one Psychology Department of any reputable university that teaches MBTI, any more than I have been able to find one Astronomy Department that teaches Astrology.

Psychology Departments find MBTI risible, just as Astronomy Departments laugh at the idea of teaching Astrology.

 

[onemoretime]

So far I have not been able to find one Psychology Department of any reputable university that teaches MBTI, any more than I have been able to find one Astronomy Department that teaches Astrology.

Psychology Departments find MBTI risible, just as Astronomy Departments laugh at the idea of teaching Astrology.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, unfortunately.

 

[raz]

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, unfortunately.

I told you, we need a Victor to English dictionary.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yeah, let's do it.

The old ship is sinking with all hands on board, but we are building a new ship with every post we make.

Naturally we are reluctant to leave the old ship. It has the advantage of familiarity. Hey, it's family. But the new ship is taking shape around us. All we need to do is limn the new shape as we build it.

Most of us are familiar with the new. Some of us live in New South Wales and some in New York. All we need to do is leave South Wales and York behind. And set sail for the New World. Hey, we are living in it already.

And just as Captain Cook, the worlds greatest navigator and explorer, navigated our way to the New World, so Marshall McLuhan, the patron saint of the internet, has navigated our way to the internet, to the noosphere, the new sphere.

The book guided us to the sphere of literacy, while the speed of light on the internet is guiding us into the safe harbour of the noosphere.

And just as Captain Cook sailed into Sydney Harbour, Captain Marshall McLuhan is sailing our ship into the noosphere.

And just as Sydney Harbour is the most beautiful harbour in the world, so is the noosphere.

pm;dr

("presumably meaningless; didn't read")

MBTi and Jung's psychological types are the centerpiece of all psychology courses. You can't understand the human mind without them... This is highlighted on wikipedia, where MBTi is mentioned zero times under psychology and cognitive psychology, and Jung is mentioned twice under psychology and zero times under cognitive psychology. This is probably because Jung is the founder of analytical psychology and not cognitive psychology. Wikipedia also mentions that "Jungian ideas are routinely discussed in part by curriculum of introductory psychology course offerings with most major universities, and although rarely covered by higher level course work, his ideas are discussed further by the Faculty of Humanities." This seems to agree with my understanding of his work. It is often used by writers, script writers, journalists, career counsellors, business, etc. It is not the pinnacle of the psychology world, or cognitive studies.

<Victor's head explodes>

So far I have not been able to find one Psychology Department of any reputable university that teaches MBTI, any more than I have been able to find one Astronomy Department that teaches Astrology.

Psychology Departments find MBTI risible, just as Astronomy Departments laugh at the idea of teaching Astrology.

Georgia State University Psychology Department

I went to school here and they taught a brief section on MBTI in my Intro to General Psych course.

In case you're wondering about the credentials of this school (I thought your very Te addition of the words "of repute" was pretty telling), look at the qualifications listed on the linked page:

Almost $6 million in annual external grant support, to 27 different principal investigators
150 peer reviewed publications in past two years, plus 24 book chapters and 1 book
13 PhDs in psychology conferred each year, on average

I guess my school was not a university "of repute", though, if it doesn't support Victor's idealistic fantasy. :hi:

But I'm not a Type, I am not a number, I am not four magic letters, I am whole and wholesome, a Roman, ready to defend the Holy City of the Enlightenment.

Nah, you're probably ISFP or INTJ.

"I am too special to fit in a box" = classic Fi.

You do not understand categories as anything but static forced definitions.

The categories are constantly changed and updated and carried in different variations within each of us, and those of us who study typology continue to adjust them constantly the more we learn about the people around us.

You do not move to fit the type's predetermined static shape; the type is neither static nor one shape. It is constantly redefined to fit you and others who share it.

Imagine not an ordinary concrete box, but a liquid container capable of constantly stretching, bending and rearranging itself to accommodate the wide variety of people contained with it.

That is how typology users think of categorization and types.

Since you don't really seem to get this, I'm forced to assume your opinion on the matter is garbled nonsense.

 

[Totenkindly]

Nah, you're probably ISFP or INTJ.

...Please.

I also don't think a "brief review of MBTI" at your alma mater counts as the sort of focus Victor is alluding to here as what he thinks constitutes legitimate inquiry.

 

[raz]

...Please.

I also don't think a "brief review of MBTI" at your alma mater counts as the sort of focus Victor is alluding to here as what he thinks constitutes legitimate inquiry.

Yeah....Even in my limited classes at the community college, I actually learned of MBTI in an interpersonal communication class, where our instructor had us all take the test....on humanmetrics. Our learning center has a whole shelf dedicated to MBTI books, testing services, MBTI certified people. Not nearly what you're alluding to, but it was definitely enough to hook me. Usually I don't go for a random personality test, but it showed a lot of history, research and validity. Now 2 years later, and I'm still obsessed.