[Ni] MBTI must be destroyed.

[erg]

So that a true typology might emerge from the ashes.

It is ridden with misconceptions, misrepresentations, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, bad tests, low depth, lucrative motives, bad methods, crappy descriptions that don't match up with reality. It is pop-psychology.

 

[Mole]

So that a true typology might emerge from the ashes.
It is ridden with misconceptions, misrepresentations, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, bad tests, low depth, lucrative motives, bad methods, crappy descriptions that don't match up with reality. It is pop-psychology.

Yes, but it can't be destroyed because it is trance, and we can't destroy a trance, we can only wake from a trance.

And the way to wake from a trance is to introduce a small extraneous element into the trance.

 

[1487610420]

Yes, but it can't be destroyed because it is trance, and we can't destroy a trance, we can only wake from a trance.

And the way to wake from a trance is to introduce a small extraneous element into the trance.

 

[Yama]

Wait, there are people who take it more seriously than pop psychology? I've always thought of it as such (but find it fun to talk about nonetheless).

 

[Pionart]

Ok, MBTI is one branch off of Jungian Typology. The theory of types is versatile, and is full of contradictions as well because they are multiple approaches.

It's something that you have to study deeply to really get a better picture of than what the descriptions can show, but when you get there it becomes more and more real.

 

[Taibreah]

It is very confusing to me. Especially when you can relate to many of the others types, which in turn makes you second guess yourself/type. I would love it if there were a method of finding out our true typology, as you said.

 

[Gypsy-Flux]

Did anyone else read the title of this thread with a Dalek voice?

 

[cosmictone]

Can we destroy the internet shortly afterwards? I feel it's biggest accomplishment is enabling procrastination.

 

[GavinElster]

Well there's many issues here. First, Jung's typology is kind of speculative and unfinished ideas. I don't think he fully justified his ideas. The MBTI itself was kind of a move to implement Jung's ideas in a more empirically validated form, but in some sense it proceeded too akin to mainstream personality psychology and thus wound up being a different beast from Jung...where people pawn off the idea that this common functions theory you hear of (like ENTP being Ne+Ti+Fe+Si) is just straightforwardly valid, when it's one of many models out there, highly controversial, and devastatingly far from empirically tested. So I kind of scoff when people out there try to pretend as if they're doing MBTI the "Right" way, because they're going by what the "official theory" really says. In reality this is a highly speculative ongoing interpretive enterprise.

My personal way of making peace with this stuff is to note that you don't need to pretend this stuff is empiricism-driven. It's more based on armchair theorizing based off of deep ideas, but not driven by data/facts. That has a certain value, but there are certain things it won't do.

There's no reason one can't go with a more empirical model like the Big 5. I find this more fun, but I can pretty cuttingly discuss where each model is at without deception. I think that's more than sufficient.

 

[reckful]

There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they long ago acknowledged that the MBTI passed muster in the validity and reliability departments, and that each typology might have things to teach the other. And contrary to what you sometimes hear from poorly informed sources, the validity and reliability of the MBTI have been found to be basically on a par with the leading Big Five test (the NEO-PI-R).

Anyone who's interested can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post and the post that follows it.

 

[Pionart]

It is very confusing to me. Especially when you can relate to many of the others types, which in turn makes you second guess yourself/type. I would love it if there were a method of finding out our true typology, as you said.

I believe that we show the cognition of multiple types. Also, some types are just naturally similar to other types. So yes it is quite normal to relate to multiple type profiles.

A lot of certainty in typings simply comes from experience, although there may be good neuroscientific methods in the future. I try to categorise a sentence or paragraph of text into a function and look for function order.

 

[PurpleDawn]

So that a true typology might emerge from the ashes.

It is ridden with misconceptions, misrepresentations, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, bad tests, low depth, lucrative motives, bad methods, crappy descriptions that don't match up with reality. It is pop-psychology.

Too damn true tho

 

[virtualinsanity]

I agree with the first post. MBTI is 100% erroneous, has a racist background, & if you've ever read Jung's book who the creators claim the systems were inspired by, you'd know they misconstrued Jung's insights.
Jung himself rebuked the 4 Letter system and said it is hard to type people in real life.. Imagine how much harder this is online.

Yet people are in here arguing and what not over it. You know what Jung called typing people so easily with the MBTI? He said it was a silly game. So the guy who even provided insights for those racists who started the MBTI even wanted nothing to do with it. (Disrespectfully, Isabel & her mom went on with it.)

Jung stated that Judgers were those who had a dominant function of Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi. He didn't say anything about the aux determing that. Yet, MBTI switched his style up. So if you are an introverted type, you might be mistyped, anyways. It only measures the persona of a person instead of who they truly are on the inside.
Jung also said that type CAN change while MBTI tells you, it cant. I find that highly unrealistic since humans mature and experiences shape our lives.
The MBTI is a Cancer that needs to die. I've come to the conclusion that all functions can be used circumstantially and for that very reason, I don't believe I'm a type anymore. I think Jung's intent with the functions and types were misconstrued very heavily and people took this ignorant system called the MBTI and use it to stick to egotistical ways, make excuses for inhumane behavior, and reasons to remain complacent.

I'm on my phone now but if anyone wants references and facts, I'll be happy to provide.

By the way.. (..and to elaborate..)
Isabel Briggs-Myers was a racist woman who wrote a racist novel. She also attempted to use psychological descriptions on a black woman when the black woman spoke up about race equality. After figuring this, it's hard to even look at MBTI the same, even if it were in line with Jung's "Psychological Types." I am a black woman so basically, the MBTI probably wasn't made for me. In fact, both Isabel and her mother used the tests to help women find work during one of the wars. It is a dark system...

 

[virtualinsanity]

Well there's many issues here. First, Jung's typology is kind of speculative and unfinished ideas. I don't think he fully justified his ideas. The MBTI itself was kind of a move to implement Jung's ideas in a more empirically validated form, but in some sense it proceeded too akin to mainstream personality psychology and thus wound up being a different beast from Jung...where people pawn off the idea that this common functions theory you hear of (like ENTP being Ne+Ti+Fe+Si) is just straightforwardly valid, when it's one of many models out there, highly controversial, and devastatingly far from empirically tested. So I kind of scoff when people out there try to pretend as if they're doing MBTI the "Right" way, because they're going by what the "official theory" really says. In reality this is a highly speculative ongoing interpretive enterprise.

My personal way of making peace with this stuff is to note that you don't need to pretend this stuff is empiricism-driven. It's more based on armchair theorizing based off of deep ideas, but not driven by data/facts. That has a certain value, but there are certain things it won't do.

There's no reason one can't go with a more empirical model like the Big 5. I find this more fun, but I can pretty cuttingly discuss where each model is at without deception. I think that's more than sufficient.

I understand what you're saying but I cannot simply look past the fact that Myers-Briggs was (half-assed) based on Jung's definition of the functions. If Isabel and her mom didn't entirely agree with Jung they should've came up with an entirely new typology system of their own and called it that.

I believe the only way to truly, try to understand yourself is to read Psychological Types by Jung and apply that, alone. Secondly, did Jung ever say his book and insights were unfinished ideas? When Katherine Briggs was alive, Jung rebuked her for trying to type people with such a narrow system. So, if Jung rebuked the MBTI, obviously he didn't deem it necessary for Isabel or her mom to add MBTI in there.

Here's the thing: MBTI measures an introvert's image instead of their true, inner personality..because the system recognizes J/P by the first function it extraverts. This only gives us the persona and tends to place too much emphasis on the aux function that the dominant should be the focus. Thus, one might get mistyped.

In Psychological Types, Jung clearly states that the rational functions are Te, Ti, Fe, Fi..and these are the Judging Functions. He never made such a claim that the first extraverted function means these folks are verified as P/J by that. Myers-Briggs added that to Jung, regardless of Jung's disdain for the system and screwed it all up. J/P doesn't mean to plan and etc.. J describes the rational dominant types and P the irrational dominant types. How the heck did MBTI attempt to finish what Jung started if Jung himself already rebuked it? Furthermore, if you think you're an ISFJ because one is overly planned and organized, you might be mistyped. There is no where in Jung's book where he claims Si is clean, planned or organized and on time. So, as far as I'm concerned, MBTI is a whole mess.

MBTI was created by mother and daughter.. One who was most likely a racist ..(Isabel). The MBTI is a secondary system formed by these two. Anyone, whether well known or not could also come up with their own system based on Jung, too..and should be equally considered if this is what we're going to be doing.

..And the issue is people cling so tight to their egos via stereotypes that they start bickering & trying to tell others they're a mistype. It is a whole mess..and as Jung put it - a silly parlor game.

Even worse than that, some people spend their money on working with MBTI "professionals."

 

[Kanra Jest]

So that a true typology might emerge from the ashes.

It is ridden with misconceptions, misrepresentations, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, bad tests, low depth, lucrative motives, bad methods, crappy descriptions that don't match up with reality. It is pop-psychology.

Perhaps a Psychological Revolution is in order.

 

[GavinElster]

I believe the only way to truly, try to understand yourself is to read Psychological Types by Jung and apply that, alone. Secondly, did Jung ever say his book and insights were unfinished ideas?

I agree that one of the biggest mistakes of the Myers/Briggs enterprise is being ambiguous in just how connected to Jungian ideas it is...it would have been much better to just separate the two out.

As for why Jung's ideas are unfinished, ultimately this is because Jung was an extremely thoughtful/insightful man, but VERY far from empirically minded by scientific standards, and this assessment of mine has nothing to do with the Myers-Briggs typology, although I think it's natural that someone might have taken his ideas and try to actually test them out with real data. I believe anyone who finds a ready-to-use typology in Psychological Types should keep reading it and asking what it means until it's clear there's gaping questions left unanswered, but lots of interesting things worth thinking about. What this means is that one can come up with many directions to go from his work, and some are intelligent, and others are not.

Basically, the good of the MBTI is that it tried to extract some empirically tested insight from Jungian ideas. The bad is that it remains incredibly ambiguously interwoven with its Jungian roots, and that there are other theories like the Big 5 that take the dream of a scientific view of personality farther/are (it seems to me) more ambitious and complete in that spirit, thus making it harder to excuse the first (what I'd call actual) flaw, despite the mentioned strength.

 

[Fun in the Sun]

What doesn't make sense about MBTI is that it tests for dichotomies, and then gives you a spread of functions. I don't see how they relate at all. Just because I tested as ISFP, doesn't mean that I use FiSeNiTe. The connections don't follow.

 

[Agent Washington]

I agree with the first post. MBTI is 100% erroneous, has a racist background, & if you've ever read Jung's book who the creators claim the systems were inspired by, you'd know they misconstrued Jung's insights.
Jung himself rebuked the 4 Letter system and said it is hard to type people in real life.. Imagine how much harder this is online.

Yet people are in here arguing and what not over it. You know what Jung called typing people so easily with the MBTI? He said it was a silly game. So the guy who even provided insights for those racists who started the MBTI even wanted nothing to do with it. (Disrespectfully, Isabel & her mom went on with it.)

Jung stated that Judgers were those who had a dominant function of Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi. He didn't say anything about the aux determing that. Yet, MBTI switched his style up. So if you are an introverted type, you might be mistyped, anyways. It only measures the persona of a person instead of who they truly are on the inside.
Jung also said that type CAN change while MBTI tells you, it cant. I find that highly unrealistic since humans mature and experiences shape our lives.
The MBTI is a Cancer that needs to die. I've come to the conclusion that all functions can be used circumstantially and for that very reason, I don't believe I'm a type anymore. I think Jung's intent with the functions and types were misconstrued very heavily and people took this ignorant system called the MBTI and use it to stick to egotistical ways, make excuses for inhumane behavior, and reasons to remain complacent.

I'm on my phone now but if anyone wants references and facts, I'll be happy to provide.

By the way.. (..and to elaborate..)
Isabel Briggs-Myers was a racist woman who wrote a racist novel. She also attempted to use psychological descriptions on a black woman when the black woman spoke up about race equality. After figuring this, it's hard to even look at MBTI the same, even if it were in line with Jung's "Psychological Types." I am a black woman so basically, the MBTI probably wasn't made for me. In fact, both Isabel and her mother used the tests to help women find work during one of the wars. It is a dark system...

I'm nowhere near America, so it probably wasn't made for me, as well. BUT, perusing MBTI (as opposed to Jungian functions and, socionics), I got the impression that it was an elaborate marketed system - a product of American capitalism, so to speak.

Anyway, I have come to several disagreements with MBTI while looking into Jungian functions on my own accord (due to analysing its internal systemic incoherence and finding out its inadequacies, as well as a cursory comparison of MBTI with what I understand of neuroscience and psychological studies out there).

Anyway, I haven't really looked into more stuff, but I do value exchange from people who are critical of the MBTI system even if it is for other reasons than what I already had, and while I won't put it in such terms (mostly because there IS a dedicated following and .. I'm not sure I want to ruffle feathers). .. I'd be happy to see more of what you've got to say, if you want to.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

[MENTION=31909]agentwashington[/MENTION] - Don't worry about ruffling feathers. There is nothing wrong with having threads that are strictly for debating the accuracy of MBTI or any other typing system. Otherwise, this whole forum is just a joke. Actually, without critical thinking, it's basically a cult.

I have been having some internal struggle with grasping and fully accepting MBTI lately. I need to get my hands on some actual books and dive in deeper. The problem for me is that I can't use MBTI solely to explain myself. There are holes and inconsistencies that can only be "explained" by consideration of other typing systems used as supplementation. For example, I am almost certain that I use nearly equal part Fe and Fi, however, I don't often use Te, or at least in comparison to Ti, it's barely noticeable. MBTI has no explanation for this other than I'm "not healthy." Well... you know what I have to say to that? Fuck that. I have stood up multiple times with little regard for consequences or affecting the "mood" of a room, to the point where I probably seem like a major bitch at times. I have put my job on the line to voice my inner moral compass. I have gotten out of my car to address self-centered asshole drivers (three times now, and not in psycho road rage ways but more like "um, excuse me... no... you can't do that shit you asshole"). I recently was upset when my landlord group texted everyone in my building, thereby revealing my phone number to all of my neighbors, so I texted him a rather straightforward response informing him that he was out of line in doing such and that he needed to respect my privacy. How is any of that Fe? If you can tell me, then perhaps I will understand the differences between Fe and Fi better, but for now, I feel like I often sacrifice harmony for voicing my opinions. With that said, it is also obvious that I Fe all over the fricken place, or so I'm told at least.

For your consideration, here is the text I sent my landlord:

"You do realize that you just violated our individual privacy by group messaging us, don't you? Private would have been more professional (not even sure this is legal). Please respect my privacy and rights from here on out."

I know several INFJs irl, and I can't see any of them (maaaaybe one...) asserting their landlord or bosses like I have in the past. Rather, I see them sort of just dealing with it and letting things go. Now, for the mean time, I have explained this away through my enneagram, as I am double-reactive, and actually, I can see e1s being reactive too because of their strong moral code and judgy nature. Furthermore, being Sx/So could potentially make me more assertive. Point is, I can't explain myself with just MBTI.

I have considered the fact that perhaps I am an INFP, but that just doesn't seem to line up when I look at the other functions, and I also consistently test as INFJ, regardless, for several years now. I think maybe it's time to dive deeper into socionics and see what I find there.

If I am still not grasping exactly what Fi is, feel free to school me.

 

[Fun in the Sun]

I agree with the first post. MBTI is 100% erroneous, has a racist background, & if you've ever read Jung's book who the creators claim the systems were inspired by, you'd know they misconstrued Jung's insights.
Jung himself rebuked the 4 Letter system and said it is hard to type people in real life.. Imagine how much harder this is online.

Yet people are in here arguing and what not over it. You know what Jung called typing people so easily with the MBTI? He said it was a silly game. So the guy who even provided insights for those racists who started the MBTI even wanted nothing to do with it. (Disrespectfully, Isabel & her mom went on with it.)

Jung stated that Judgers were those who had a dominant function of Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi. He didn't say anything about the aux determing that. Yet, MBTI switched his style up. So if you are an introverted type, you might be mistyped, anyways. It only measures the persona of a person instead of who they truly are on the inside.
Jung also said that type CAN change while MBTI tells you, it cant. I find that highly unrealistic since humans mature and experiences shape our lives.
The MBTI is a Cancer that needs to die. I've come to the conclusion that all functions can be used circumstantially and for that very reason, I don't believe I'm a type anymore. I think Jung's intent with the functions and types were misconstrued very heavily and people took this ignorant system called the MBTI and use it to stick to egotistical ways, make excuses for inhumane behavior, and reasons to remain complacent.

I'm on my phone now but if anyone wants references and facts, I'll be happy to provide.

By the way.. (..and to elaborate..)
Isabel Briggs-Myers was a racist woman who wrote a racist novel. She also attempted to use psychological descriptions on a black woman when the black woman spoke up about race equality. After figuring this, it's hard to even look at MBTI the same, even if it were in line with Jung's "Psychological Types." I am a black woman so basically, the MBTI probably wasn't made for me. In fact, both Isabel and her mother used the tests to help women find work during one of the wars. It is a dark system...

From what I have read on Socionics, it seems like a fancier way of of locking people into categories that change dramatically from one typer to the next. No one can agree on anything. Maybe, just maybe humans are more complicated and Jung and everything based on it is just wrong? Maybe its true for some people, but not all people? Idk