What is MBTI?

[Yara the Corpse]

Yes, I've been with MBTI for at least a year and a half now, but a question that really hasn't bothered me at all has come up...

What even is the right MBTI? If MBTI is specifically a theory devised by Myer's Briggs, then should one consider any other sources except hers in their exploration of their type? I know this sounds limiting and that people think that all sorts of definitions from other places are worth recognizing because they maybe clarify or improve things, but what is the point of a unified type system if every person uses a different source, given that there's a billion out there? People might even try and make up their own definitions after looking at different sources over a long period of time because they no longer feel the need to revisit the definitions as they already have an idea of what they are in their head, and if it is in their head, then who knows what their idea of MBTI has evolved into? They may be mostly the same, but I'm sure that even a slight variation might prove fatal in one's logic of typing, and if MBTI truly sucks ass and needs to be redefined, then why not make a forum wide MBTI-based sub typology?

Idk, just some thoughts.

 

[IndigoViolet11]

From the impression I got from googlingi, the information available is a relatively complicated mess because nothing much points to a particular direction, making things scatter all over the place without an ending. There are areas of our psyche or characteristic that remains so much unknown to a lot of us, and therefore to a lot of people who do their research too. Personally I think until people finally can take onto the next level, that pretty much will remain. I myself touched some areas accidentally, and realized, like a lot of people who got a grip of the truth, to shut our mouths up.

 

[yoliyoli]

Well you can think of it like this. Myers-Briggs is based off of Jung, right? Then you do this.

Myers-Briggs > Jung > what came before > everything in between

Myers-Briggs comes first because it's the name - it's the current typology as far as we're concerned. Everything else is a derivation. Then we mix in Jung. What did they base it off of? Some of this, some of that. Their logic isn't all that far apart, just worded differently. It's very disparate, but still the same. All they did was add the four-letter combos, which Jung didn't have. Then you add what came before. What was going on in psychology before Jung? Probably Freud. So mix some of him in since they bickered a lot. Where did he get his ideas from? Was it Freud? Was it himself? Was it psychology itself? Cognitive psychology is a mess. Then add all that came after. That means Socionics, other typing classifications, and redos of Myers-Briggs. They all have insight. You've just gotta mix them together. You've also gotta understand what each person meant. How did they write? Why did they write? Analyze each psychology by the person who did it. Why did it logically make sense to them? If it logically made sense to them, it probably does now, you just have to think about it. Maybe their words didn't get translated correctly or you're not reading it correctly. Meaning, what means Ti to one person doesn't necessarily mean Ti to the next - even Jung and Myers-Briggs.