I think MBTI is full of it.

[simulatedworld]

...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.

He's set up the question so that nothing which supports typology will ever constitute "legitimate inquiry."

This way he can offer both Thinking and Feeling justifications for roundly rejecting it, simply by setting the standard of proof at an unrealistically high level. (I mean, since Jungian typology is only an arbitrary model of categorization anyway, "proving it" is rather beside the point...not that I expect Victor to recognize this.)

This helps to support his delusional, egocentric view of himself as a holy crusader ordained by God to rid the world of the evils of personality categorization.

Read his posts; he's so threatened by the idea of being categorized that he'll go to any lengths to invalidate the idea.

 

[slowriot]

The institution that uses MBTI is the USA military/industrial complex.

Yes, MBTI was specifically written for the USA military/industrial complex to prosecute a war.

And the USA military/industrial complex has been using MBTI for seventy years for the same purpose. But in all that time they have not done even one random double blind experiment to determine its legitimacy as a personality test. So plainly they use it for other purposes, namely to control and manipulate recruits and employees.

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.

HA! Where is there any indication of anything you say.

Most of the time you sound like a conspiracy theorist which only purpose is to be opposite of the general establishment. Being opposite dont mean unique victor, it only makes you sound like Peter in the story of Peter and the wolf.

 

[fill]

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.

I'm not. However, I believe with enough time I could do so (the number of years required is beyond my lifespan), but not all at once. My mind simply isn't that advanced.

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.

I agree.

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.

I've been there. You know, when I dissolved my entire system of morals in ethics based on Christianity. That's a bit of a step.

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."

Thank you, that was very informing.

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.

It isn't simple. But let me tell you something: that happened. That part of my life was very dark.

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.

What? I'm simply curious; if my ego was hurt by this, you'd have a much more angry response. I think you've made the assumption that I'm certain in what I say; I'm certainly not.

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 don't just believe in limitations in this sense, but in many different areas of life; however, some of these limitations are lifted by what we experience. I've never travelled around the world. Wouldn't you think my point of view's limits would be broadened, if you will, if I did so?

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.

I'm familiar with this, and, again, I agree. I'm majoring in physics, so I'm well aware that by the end of my lifetime, we'll have gone far in reaching the truth in how our universe works, but compared to the amount of knowledge that is not yet known, one could consider it insignificant.

Also, something else I want to take care of:
Victor, please stop derailing my thread. I dislike sifting through the silliness to find something enlightening.

 

[slowriot]

we all use the functions, not equally ofcourse, but there are time where we go out of character so to speak and uses our inferior functions to communicate from instead of our more developed functions. That dont mean that we become different people just that mean we do things out of character. Looking into how you respond when you get the sense that you go out of character can also be a way to distinguish your own initial type.

I think of Jungs ideas of personality as this. We are born as a clean canvas (tabula rasa) in the sense that we subconsiously have a sketch on it with some kind of archetype that are in our genes. But as we grow we can either choose to use some of that sketch or we can paint outside of those boundaries, that is something that we subconsciously and consciously chooses as children, sometimes by encouragement/influence from our parents. We cant discard this painting but we can make it into something that we via our subconscious and conscious chooses to be the image of our archetype. I for one believe that my painting has been influenced by Ti and Ne the most or that my archetype of choice was a balance between Ti and Ne, with a certain amount of Ti as the dominant.

Edit: I just had some thoughts on this painting example. Our lives are like an artist that makes these variations over the same theme. Each day is different, the colouring is different perhaps but the image is still the same or the theme of the painting will still be the same. Thats like what we are as people, each day we are a different image that we create, just with different shades or structural composition but the theme remains the same.

 

[fill]

we all use the functions, not equally ofcourse, but there are time where we go out of character so to speak and uses our inferior functions to communicate from instead of our more developed functions. That dont mean that we become different people just that mean we do things out of character. Looking into how you respond when you get the sense that you go out of character can also be a way to distinguish your own initial type.

I think of Jungs ideas of personality as this. We are born as a clean canvas (tabula rasa) in the sense that we subconsiously have a sketch on it with some kind of archetype that are in our genes. But as we grow we can either choose to use some of that sketch or we can paint outside of those boundaries, that is something that we subconsciously and consciously chooses as children, sometimes by encouragement/influence from our parents. We cant discard this painting but we can make it into something that we via our subconscious and conscious chooses to be the image of our archetype. I for one believe that my painting has been influenced by Ti and Ne the most or that my archetype of choice was a balance between Ti and Ne, with a certain amount of Ti as the dominant.

Edit: I just had some thoughts on this painting example. Our lives are like an artist that makes these variations over the same theme. Each day is different, the colouring is different perhaps but the image is still the same or the theme of the painting will still be the same. Thats like what we are as people, each day we are a different image that we create, just with different shades or structural composition but the theme remains the same.

Ding.

 

[skylights]

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.

yeah, you know, usually i find your posts at least interesting or entertaining, if totally thread-derailing, but this is just annoying.

any reputable university with a psych department probably will have an MBTI book somewhere. i personally learned about it in personality psych class (huge surprise there) alongside other tests like the MMPI, five factor, TAT, DAPT, rorschach, etc. not to mention the career office's books and tests, or the books about it archived in the library. it's not a huge focus, but to ignore it would be to ignore a significant part of personality theory history.

not to mention that the "psychology : MBTI :: astronomy : astrology" analogy is... well, risible.

I just had some thoughts on this painting example. Our lives are like an artist that makes these variations over the same theme. Each day is different, the colouring is different perhaps but the image is still the same or the theme of the painting will still be the same. Thats like what we are as people, each day we are a different image that we create, just with different shades or structural composition but the theme remains the same.

interesting

 

[Mole]

Blind Faith

yeah, you know, usually i find your posts at least interesting or entertaining, if totally thread-derailing, but this is just annoying.

any reputable university with a psych department probably will have an MBTI book somewhere. i personally learned about it in personality psych class (huge surprise there) alongside other tests like the MMPI, five factor, TAT, DAPT, rorschach, etc. not to mention the career office's books and tests, or the books about it archived in the library. it's not a huge focus, but to ignore it would be to ignore a significant part of personality theory history.

not to mention that the "psychology : MBTI :: astronomy : astrology" analogy is... well, risible.

interesting

If any Psychology Department took MBTI seriously they would do a random double blind test. But in seventy years not one Psychology Department has done a random double blind test.

In other words we take MBTI on blind faith.

And in a country based on blind faith, MBTI naturally recommends itself.

 

[skylights]

If any Psychology Department took MBTI seriously they would do a random double blind test. But in seventy years not one Psychology Department has done a random double blind test.

In other words we take MBTI on blind faith.

And in a country based on blind faith, MBTI naturally recommends itself.

how are you gonna do a random double-blind on jungian theory? you personally are the only one who can determine your type. the test is only an "indicator". it indicates what you probably are based on your responses. it doesn't claim to provide you with, without a doubt, your type.

we don't take MBTI on blind faith, anyway, at least i don't. it's just a tool, a construct. it's not Truth, whatever that is. it's a frame of understanding and i doubt it really can be disproven. personality theory is simply not a hard science, but that doesn't mean it can't be assessed for accuracy, refined and built upon, or practical. philosophy, especially ethics, is not reducible to pure scientific terms either, but does that mean it's not a worthwhile pursuit?

plus if you're talking about the US, i wish people would have a little more faith in the liberal arts and a little less faith in Sarah Palin.

 

[Mole]

how are you gonna do a random double-blind on jungian theory? you personally are the only one who can determine your type. the test is only an "indicator". it indicates what you probably are based on your responses. it doesn't claim to provide you with, without a doubt, your type.

we don't take MBTI on blind faith, anyway, at least i don't. it's just a tool, a construct. it's not Truth, whatever that is. it's a frame of understanding and i doubt it really can be disproven. personality theory is simply not a hard science, but that doesn't mean it can't be assessed for accuracy, refined and built upon, or practical. philosophy, especially ethics, is not reducible to pure scientific terms either, but does that mean it's not a worthwhile pursuit?

plus if you're talking about the US, i wish people would have a little more faith in the liberal arts and a little less faith in Sarah Palin.

The reality is that MBTI claims to be a valid and reliable personality test. But MBTI is not a valid an reliable personality test, rather MBTI is part of the New Age Cult and part of the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment.

MBTI is one with Creationism, Astrology, Neurolinguistic Programming and Alchemy.

And MBTI is very successful because it appeals to the manipulative and the gullible. MBTI appeals to the worst in us.

 

[Blown Ghost]

I don't have much experience in MBTI. However, from what I can tell about the nature of the theory there is really no way it can be refuted, persay. It could be said that the information it provides isn't useful, but that isn't really an argument as much as someone realizing the error of their own assumptions.

The dichotomies are not static but instead span the population relatively. Therefore, every person within that population will fall somewhere between "I/E", "N/S", etc. and will undoubtedly fall into 1 of 16 containers. If you are saying that the container you fall into changes, that only means you have changed your location within the system. The system itself doesn't change, so if you were to spend equal time in every container that would only mean that your overall preference is 50/50 on all 4 dichotomies. It is far more likely that you will prefer some more than others, hence, your preference.

If you say that this variance makes the system useless, then perhaps it is your assumptions about its purpose than need adjustment. What it is most effective for is identifying behavior categories so that people can be broken up into personality groups as a means to map similarities. Then, the patterns that emerge can be used to point people in the right direction for things like their career.

I doubt it was ever meant to tell you who you are or replace natural self-discovery even if that is how people want to use it. MBTI is merely a tool, an overlay on the population in order to illustrate patterns that can provide information that is useful for certain ends. Just because people misuse these patterns and assign them inane personal values does not invalidate the system.

Get it? You can't fall outside of the system and you can't say the lines aren't there even if they seem arbitrary for your purposes.

 

[Mole]

I don't have much experience in MBTI. However, from what I can tell about the nature of the theory there is really no way it can be refuted, persay. It could be said that the information it provides isn't useful, but that isn't really an argument as much as someone realizing the error of their own assumptions.

The dichotomies are not static but instead span the population relatively. Therefore, every person within that population will fall somewhere between "I/E", "N/S", etc. and will undoubtedly fall into 1 of 16 containers. If you are saying that the container you fall into changes, that only means you have changed your location within the system. The system itself doesn't change, so if you were to spend equal time in every container that would only mean that your overall preference is 50/50 on all 4 dichotomies. It is far more likely that you will prefer some more than others, hence, your preference.

If you say that this variance makes the system useless, then perhaps it is your assumptions about its purpose than need adjustment. What it is most effective for is identifying behavior categories so that people can be broken up into personality groups as a means to map similarities. Then, the patterns that emerge can be used to point people in the right direction for things like their career.

I doubt it was ever meant to tell you who you are or replace natural self-discovery even if that is how people want to use it. MBTI is merely a tool, an overlay on the population in order to illustrate patterns that can provide information that is useful for certain ends. Just because people misuse these patterns and assign them inane personal values does not invalidate the system.

Get it? You can't fall outside of the system and you can't say the lines aren't there even if they seem arbitrary for your purposes.

MBTI was created to serve the industrial system, in fact to serve the military/industrial system.

So MBTI was invented simply to serve the efficiency of the industrial system. It is an efficient way of allocating human resources.

However MBTI presumes we humans are means not ends. Whereas I am saying this is an ugly way to see us. And I am saying the beautiful way is to see us is as ends not means.

And indeed our highest and most beautiful moral imperative is to see us as ends not means.

 

[simulatedworld]

oh boy here comes The Prophet to set things right again

 

[skylights]

And indeed our highest and most beautiful moral imperative is to see us as ends not means.

ladies and gentlemen, Kant's Categorical Imperative.

incidentally, Victor, i agree with you on this statement, but not about the rest of the stuff about the MBTI. anyway do you have a past thread where you talk about your take on the history of the MBTI that you could PM me the link to, or wanna create a new one? i don't want to keep jacking fill's thread but i can't say i'm not curious.

 

[Mole]

ladies and gentlemen, Kant's Categorical Imperative.

incidentally, Victor, i agree with you on this statement, but not about the rest of the stuff about the MBTI. anyway do you have a past thread where you talk about your take on the history of the MBTI that you could PM me the link to, or wanna create a new one? i don't want to keep jacking fill's thread but i can't say i'm not curious.

The history of MBTI is shocking and will offend your moral sensibilities, just as it would offend the moral sensibilities of Emmanuel Kant.

 

[simulatedworld]

The history of MBTI is shocking and will offend your moral sensibilities, just as it would offend the moral sensibilities of Emmanuel Kant.

What about pre-MBTI Jungian function theory? Would that offend our moral sensibilities too?

 

[Blown Ghost]

MBTI was created to serve the industrial system, in fact to serve the military/industrial system.

So MBTI was invented simply to serve the efficiency of the industrial system. It is an efficient way of allocating human resources.

That's cool, but I don't see how that's relevant to what it is good for now.

However MBTI presumes we humans are means not ends. Whereas I am saying this is an ugly way to see us. And I am saying the beautiful way is to see us is as ends not means.

And indeed our highest and most beautiful moral imperative is to see us as ends not means.

MBTI doesn't "presume" anything. It is a system of categorization. If anything, MBTI is a means to a potentially useful human end. I can see how it might offend a human sense of self to be stamped with some letters, but that is only the feeling that someone, somewhere is dehumanizing you much like becoming a statistic. However, MBTI is just a tool that you may or may not choose to utilize. It is a human creation so even though MBTI itself is not human (lol) it is not inhuman by nature. Consequently, like any human tool, it's a matter of how or if you use it.

 

[lunalum]

Full of it? Of awesome? Yes, yes it is.

The institution that uses MBTI is the USA military/industrial complex.

Yes, MBTI was specifically written for the USA military/industrial complex to prosecute a war.

And the USA military/industrial complex has been using MBTI for seventy years for the same purpose. But in all that time they have not done even one random double blind experiment to determine its legitimacy as a personality test. So plainly they use it for other purposes, namely to control and manipulate recruits and employees.

To the bolded: sources?

Yes, this may be true, and if it is I will add it to my mental library of facts.

But other than that, there is not much else I can do with this.

The misuses of a system, the faults of those who created it, or any other things that are not about the system itself, say nothing about the worth or validity of it.

If any Psychology Department took MBTI seriously they would do a random double blind test. But in seventy years not one Psychology Department has done a random double blind test.

Fine, sometime I will get the resources together and run a random double blind test of MBTI. It will be interesting to see how well it holds up. But due to the nature of personality tests, such an experiment is kind of irrelevant.


Back to the OP -- typology in general can be very tricky for some people. For almost everyone, a slight preference is there, but for some it is so close as to not really be of much use. You may alternate your current type all the time, but what you are looking for is the pattern. We are all the types, but on the whole are you one of the types slightly more than the other 15?

 

[simulatedworld]

lol @ people trying to use reason with victor

 

[Mole]

Fine, sometime I will get the resources together and run a random double blind test of MBTI. It will be interesting to see how well it holds up. But due to the nature of personality tests, such an experiment is kind of irrelevant.

The fact is that the validity and reliability of all personality tests are determined by many and repeated random double blind experiments, but not MBTI.

 

[raz]

MBTI doesn't "presume" anything. It is a system of categorization. If anything, MBTI is a means to a potentially useful human end. I can see how it might offend a human sense of self to be stamped with some letters, but that is only the feeling that someone, somewhere is dehumanizing you much like becoming a statistic. However, MBTI is just a tool that you may or may not choose to utilize. It is a human creation so even though MBTI itself is not human (lol) it is not inhuman by nature. Consequently, like any human tool, it's a matter of how or if you use it.

I have no problem being stamped with letters as long as the letters accurately define my tendencies. I'm not as concerned with the moral imperative. I'm more concerned and convinced with predictability, and I believe humans are predictable. Your own emotional reaction to yourself or others may cloud your ability to accept the predictability, but it's still there.