How seriously do you take mbti?

[reckful]

The immoral agenda is the agenda of Carl Jung who wrote, Psychological Types. Carl Jung freely and voluntarily took his orders from Reichsmarschall Hermann Wilhelm Göring. And Carl Jung ran the German Psychoanalytic Association for the National Socialists. He got rid of the Jew CEO Max Eitingon, and replaced him with the cousin of the Reichsmarschall Hermann Wilhelm Göring, who was Mathias Göring.

Carl Jung wrote Psychological Types to complement the somatic types taught by National Socialism. The purpose of somatic and psychological types is to reify, to turn persons into things, because it is easier to get rid of things, and it worked.

So the immoral agenda is to reify persons. This was used to effect the Final Solution, but today reification is used to turn us into units of production and consumers.

To whom it may concern:

Mole has been making these same allegations about Jung's cooperation with the Nazis for many months, and I've called him out — and pointed him to sources that correct him — more than once.

More here and here.

From that second linked post...

Here's part of a 2011 article in The Guardian with the subhead, "On the 50th anniversary of Jung's death it is time to put accusations of him collaborating with the Nazis to rest."

Jung is also accused of complying with the Nazi authorities, in particular with Matthias Göring, the man who became the leader of organised psychotherapy in Germany, not least because he was the cousin of Hermann Göring. In fact, Matthias put Jung's name to pro-Nazi statements without Jung's knowledge.

Jung was furious, not least because he was actually fighting to keep German psychotherapy open to Jewish individuals. And that was not all. Bair reveals that Jung was involved in two plots to oust Hitler, essentially by having a leading physician declare the Führer mad. Both came to nothing.

It has also come to light that Jung operated as a spy for the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA). He was called "Agent 488" and his handler, Allen W. Dulles, later remarked: "Nobody will probably ever know how much Prof Jung contributed to the allied cause during the war."​

 

[reckful]

MBTI is a joke. it's about as tied to reality as astrology, only far less entertaining.

Two years ago you posted this...

Have fun with your toy, but don't pretend that it's science.

... and I responded here, and asked you some follow-up questions, and your response was...

*crickets*

... and Mole was there, too, and he compared the MBTI to astrology, and I responded here, and Mole replied, but he didn't really reply, if you know what I mean, but it was more replying than you did.

Last year I discussed the scientific status of the MBTI at greater length in this post and the post that follows it — citing, among other sources, a large 2003 meta-review and supplemental study that found that the MBTI was more or less on a par with the Big Five in the psychometric respectability department.

Here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESTJ 0.12
ESFJ 0.18
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that tidy are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from bottom to top) ES-IS-EN-IN.

That's the kind of evidence that psychologists have been using to establish the "validity" of personality dimensions for many years now. And that's just one example pulled from 50 years of MBTI data pools that have respectably established the validity of all four of the MBTI dichotomies.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that the MBTI is tapping into four substantially-genetic dimensions of personality, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like 30 times more likely than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech.

And I assume you'd agree that if someone had ascertained the zodiac signs of those same 705 Cal Tech science majors, it's very unlikely that the distribution of zodiac signs for those students would have proven to be substantially different than the distribution in the general population.

So I'd say it's pretty clear that the MBTI, for all its imperfections, is far more "tied to reality" than astrology.

 

[wolfnara]

It's psychology, which means its purely based on theory. I don't even think of it as a "tool" to use to understand people in real life, I'm just drawn to it because the concept is interesting. Like many things though it lumps people together into different categories, instead of looking at the individual person.

It also takes time to actually learn. But it is a fun idea to think about. I do believe that some are better at applying logical judgement than others, and vice versa with feeling. The sensing vs intuition dichotomy makes less sense however.

 

[Tilt]

In many respects, I find it to be a joke especially when one takes it too literally and seriously... It ends up becoming a hollow caricature of a person. If anything, i use it as a potential guideline of how a person may or may not act and then observe him or her to take note of individual quirks based on the several other sources of information.

 

[Yama]

It's nice that I can attempt to use it as a tool to learn about myself and thus improve myself, but I don't take it super seriously. At the end of the day it is just a fun theory, with a few possible practical applications if you're knowledgeable about MBTI. Other than that, and especially on the superficial level, it is meaningless beyond brief curiosity and entertainment.

/says the person who just last week was crying about how I needed to develop Fe to be a better person

 

[-Beatriz]

Sort of seriously. It's interesting and cool to learn, and it really does tells you a lot about yourself and other people aroud you. BUT it shouldn't be taken like the absolute truth. A person of a certain type does not have ALL the characteristics of said type. And I think that the cognitive functions are a really important thing in this theory.