Theory and Mbti

[Mole]

A theory is a fact, and Physics has a theory, Chemistry has a theory, and Biology has a theory, but Psychology does not have a theory. So Psychology is still at the stage of Taxonomy, that is Psychology can't make reliable predictions.

Psychometrics is part of Psychology, and is the measurement of the psyche. So Psychometrics can't make reliable predictions.

Mbti pretends to be part of Psychometrics in the same way Christian Science pretends to be part of Christianity, and for the same purpose: to falsely assume the status of science.

So both Christian Science and mbti are plausible: they are believable but not true.

 

[Forever]

A theory is a fact, and Physics has a theory, Chemistry has a theory, and Biology has a theory, but Psychology does not have a theory. So Psychology is still at the stage of Taxonomy, that is Psychology can't make reliable predictions.

Psychometrics is part of Psychology, and is the measurement of the psyche. So Psychometrics can't make reliable predictions.

Mbti pretends to be part of Psychometrics in the same way Christian Science pretends to be part of Christianity, and for the same purpose: to falsely assume the status of science.

So both Christian Science and mbti are plausible: they are believable but not true.

(to the bolded)

What? Did you just merge the divide between sensors and intuitives? Are you our savior?

The Anti-MBTI hero?

Just doing your job I see..

 

[Dreamer]

A theory is a fact, and Physics has a theory, Chemistry has a theory, and Biology has a theory, but Psychology does not have a theory. So Psychology is still at the stage of Taxonomy, that is Psychology can't make reliable predictions.

Psychometrics is part of Psychology, and is the measurement of the psyche. So Psychometrics can't make reliable predictions.

Mbti pretends to be part of Psychometrics in the same way Christian Science pretends to be part of Christianity, and for the same purpose: to falsely assume the status of science.

So both Christian Science and mbti are plausible: they are believable but not true.

What is your point to this thread? To clarify my question, yes, some do see the science, and I use that term to describe the construct and organization of theory and ideas, and some wish it to be a legitimate science, but what is the MBTI or any other personality type system serving at that point for those individuals? Is it the system itself that should be vilified or does the problem instead, lie in the use of the MBTI some individuals may attribute to the system as a means to remedy their life problems, whatever those may include. If we get rid of the vessel through which these people seek answers, they will only find it in yet another. The issue therefore was never really solved but only redirected and perhaps at that point, more obscure.

If one understands the system for what it is, as a tool, then it only finds itself useful within the person’s life when the need is called upon. Among the many other tools one has at their disposal in navigating various personalities and types of people, how is the MBTI any more harmful? You could just as easily claim that personal experiences with people, not a theory or pseudoscience, may cause someone to prematurely draw inwards and isolate themselves from social contact. What they may not know, is that they may have just come across some negative influences and those influences have unfortunately colored that person’s outlook on people in general.

 

[Lark]

A theory is a fact.

No, no its not, in fact its the opposite and I'm sure you have access to dictionaries in Australia.

 

[Coriolis]

No, no its not, in fact its the opposite and I'm sure you have access to dictionaries in Australia.

Presumably they are taught science, too, though we all know the limitations in introducing a horse to water.

 

[Jaguar]

A theory is a fact? Put down the bong.

 

[Mole]

Presumably they are taught science, too, though we all know the limitations in introducing a horse to water.

This horse knows in science a theory is s fact, like the periodic table is a fact in chemistry. By contrast in popular culture a theory is a speculation.

 

[Coriolis]

This horse knows in science a theory is s fact, like the periodic table is a fact in chemistry. By contrast in popular culture a theory is a speculation.

Then you were mistaught. A theory is an explanation that accounts for all known facts.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

The tism

 

[Norexan]

I made conclusion that some MBTI types with low intelligence or knowledge become much healthier personalities...

 

[Yama]

I made conclusion that some MBTI types with low intelligence or knowledge become much healthier personalities...

MBTI types themselves don't have low intelligence. People do sometimes, but those people could be of any type.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

eww theory is for Ns!

 

[Norexan]

MBTI types themselves don't have low intelligence. People do sometimes, but those people could be of any type.

Yeah. I just observe how mind works with cognitive functions and I found that intelligent S people have a much more mental problems then N type. I found that intelligence (emotional or logical or both) is completely natural to them like basic pack of mind. Everyone possess intelligence. Just different levels and I was talking about above-average (not genius).

 

[Yama]

I found that intelligent S people have a much more mental problems then N type when I found that intelligence (emotional or logical or both) to them is natural.

This certainly isn't true either. Perhaps in some cases, but saying that sensors have to use effort to be smart whereas smart Ns are just naturally smart effortlessly is just plain false. There's not much else that can be said to that. Sure, it may be the case for a few people, but really it's just way too sweeping and stereotypical a generalization.

 

[Introspector]

Why are there still threads about Ns being smarter than Ss?

Considering that threads talking about this topic still exist, I'd question whether either of the letters are that smart.

(English is my first language, I'm just having trouble articulating myself right now)

 

[Norexan]

This certainly isn't true either. Perhaps in some cases, but saying that sensors have to use effort to be smart whereas smart Ns are just naturally smart effortlessly is just plain false. There's not much else that can be said to that. Sure, it may be the case for a few people, but really it's just way too sweeping and stereotypical a generalization.

I just say that larger intellect is much more harder to be handle with psychically functions then abstract functions. Do you know how many cases your ter Ne can produce? As many as your Si allowed so when you are under stress you probbaly think about numerous cases flooding into your mind try to logical justify inf Ti. It is like you have a books in your mind in order and then something appear and smash this order...so your Ti must start again to categorize all so your Fe can work normal. N does not have this problem. We have a much more dangerous problems like health for example so god bless intelligence is natural to us.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I just say that larger intellect is much more harder to be handle with psychically functions then abstract functions. Do you know how many cases your ter Ne can produce? As many as your Si allowed so when you are under stress you probbaly think about numerous cases flooding into your mind try to logical justify inf Ti. It is like you have a books in your mind in order and then something appear and smash this order...so your Ti must start again to categorize all so your Fe can work normal. N does not have this problem. We have a much more dangerous problems like health for example so god bless intelligence is natural to us.

I'm smart and look after my health! Who's the real winner now?

 

[Norexan]

I'm smart and look after my health! Who's the real winner now?

This is what I was trying to say...

Intelligence easily fit with N but we have a much more larger problems like vitality...

 

[Smilephantomhive]

This is what I was trying to say...

Intelligence easily fit with N but...

It fits just fine with me. Or maybe I'm just a special snowflake.

 

[Norexan]

It fits just fine with me. Or maybe I'm just a special snowflake.

You are machine ISTJ.
You possess dom Si who is like a wormhole to data with aux Te....
Of course it works fine.