MBTI has an inherent bias....

[danseen]

MBTI "psychologists" tend to have a bias for ESFPs and ESTPs, since most of the profiles list very few negatives of those types compared to others.

Is this because psychology tends to see the optimal human state as being shallow and outgoing, without any reasoning or methodology?

 

[mcgooglian]

The bias of MBTI forums towards Ns makes up for it.

 

[HongDou]

Is this because psychology tends to see the optimal human state as being shallow and outgoing, without any reasoning or methodology?

Probably not but thanks for letting us know about how you view ESFPs and ESTPs.

 

[danseen]

Probably not but thanks for letting us know about how you view ESFPs and ESTPs.

I don't dislike anybody.

I just think ESFPs get an unfair bias.

My type (INTP) has positives and more negatives, whilst ESFPs get largely positives with few negatives. This is only based on the beliefs of psychologists, little else.

 

[HongDou]

I just think ESFPs get an unfair bias.

It's a bias that goes both ways though. ESFPs also have negative stereotypes about them being stupid, vapid, shallow, and unreasonable.

My type (INTP) has positives and more negatives, whilst ESFPs get largely positives with few negatives.

I actually think that shows more of a bias towards the INTPs since it shows more thought was put into their description than the ESFP description. It also gives INTPs more of an opportunity to recognize and work around the negatives listed than ESFPs.

 

[miss fortune]

I'm sure that if the profiles aren't negative enough for your tastes you can stick around here for a week or two and hear quite enough negative things about primary Se users to please you

 

[danseen]

It's a bias that goes both ways though. ESFPs also have negative stereotypes about them being stupid, vapid, shallow, and unreasonable.



I actually think that shows more of a bias towards the INTPs since it shows more thought was put into their description than the ESFP description. It also gives INTPs more of an opportunity to recognize and work around the negatives listed than ESFPs.

Er.. no. lol..

Most see it on face value, and it's something done to purposefully praise ESFPs and discredit INTPs. If INTPs have "more to work" on, then it's clear the bias is in favour of the ESFPs by the MBTI people since they're saying they are more adjusted. So if "more thought" has gone into it, then clearly this is a negative bias. Unless MBTI people can be honest and say they think ESFP is an inherently "better" type.... lol.

 

[HongDou]

I'm sure that if the profiles aren't negative enough for your tastes you can stick around here for a week or two and hear quite enough negative things about primary Se users to please you

Yeah, pretty much this.

Er.. no. lol..

Most see it on face value, and it's something done to purposefully praise ESFPs and discredit INTPs. If INTPs have "more to work" on, then it's clear the bias is in favour of the ESFPs by the MBTI people since they're saying they are more adjusted. So if "more thought" has gone into it, then clearly this is a negative bias. Unless MBTI people can be honest and say they think ESFP is an inherently "better" type.... lol.

I really doubt that INTPs are viewed as a "worse" type and ESFPs are viewed as a "better" type. INTs tend to be a desirable type to be on online communities while ESFs tend to get bashed on in the background.

 

[danseen]

lol.. to me it seems obvious, since ESFPs on most MBTI literature seldom get much criticisms. Prove then per the literature of psychologists it's not seen as a worse type, and not by lay people on a Web forum.

My main point though is that this proves psychology is a fraud. it has no true benevolent centre.

Your insinuation is that I must suck it up, well yes suck up a dishonest science lol..

 

[danseen]

I'm sure that if the profiles aren't negative enough for your tastes you can stick around here for a week or two and hear quite enough negative things about primary Se users to please you

hmm..

This essentially proves my point about psychology.

It seems you're justifying it's negative qualities, but there you go, psychology is a scummy practice right?

 

[HongDou]

Prove then per the literature of psychologists it's not seen as a worse type, and not by lay people on a Web forum.

What you're saying doesn't seem to prove that they're trying to say one type is better than others. Just because one description is more substantial than another doesn't really prove anything.

My main point though is that this proves psychology is a fraud. it has no true benevolent centre.

Trying to disprove psychology on a forum centered around it is like trying to break a brick wall by throwing a baseball. I mean, no one's asking you to follow all of its principles - I certainly don't follow a few scientific principles - so why are you getting so riled up about it? If you don't want to believe psychology exists I'm not sure why you even have INTP as your listed type.

psychology is a scummy practice right?

You could ask [MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION], who I believe has a degree in it. Although good job contradicting yourself earlier when you said "I don't dislike anybody" - you seem to have a bias against people who practice psychology.

 

[skylights]

The funny thing is I don't think a lot of psychologists are really that into MBTI, and a lot of the authors who write type descriptions found on the internet - besides the major big names in personality - are just laypeople interested in the subject.

It really just depends on the author as to what type gets panned. Keirsey gives the short end of the stick to S types in general.

But "psychology" is just a field of study... it is just a term referring to a particular set of information - in this case information pertaining to the mind - and the group of people who engage that type of information. By definition, there is nothing inherently benevolent or malevolent about it. By definition, too, there is nothing inherently fraudulent about it.

Whereas the people who study and practice it may be any of those things.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Modern psychs do largely disregard MBTI just like they disregard Freud. But that doesn't mean it's a fraud. It's a tool, and tools can be misused, by people.

 

[Standuble]

Why (In the OP) do you say the theory has an inherent bias whilst in the content you lay the fault clearly with the practitioners? MBTI is just a list of letters/cognitive functions and the descriptions about what each function does. The theory itself plays no favourites.

 

[Mal12345]

My personality inventory includes ways that each of the 16 types tends to lose out. just saying.

 

[garbage]

Interesting if true. Do you have examples of descriptions that we can compare?

 

[danseen]

Why (In the OP) do you say the theory has an inherent bias whilst in the content you lay the fault clearly with the practitioners? MBTI is just a list of letters/cognitive functions and the descriptions about what each function does. The theory itself plays no favourites.

I doubt that.

Sorry, but I don't like psychology and psychologists. I think they single people out, and they're fools who don't get common norms in society.

 

[freeeekyyy]

I doubt that.

Sorry, but I don't like psychology and psychologists. I think they single people out, and they're fools who don't get common norms in society.

You doubt that? That's a fact, not an opinion. There is no agreed-upon description for each type. They are written based off of qualities that are figured from the cognitive preferences of each type. Just because you found an author who supposedly thinks ESFPs are better than other types says nothing about MBTI at all.

 

[danseen]

oh really? lol..

I doubt that, but then what do psychologists know?

 

[garbage]

Look, all anyone is asking for is a set of descriptions, facts, or.. well, any evidence at all.

"Nope." is an argument, I suppose, but not a convincing one. Asking other people to prove a negative is also kinda problematic.