What do you think of each type??

[Fate—]

ENFJ - people persons, a bit tomboyish, like to relax/have fun…
ENFP - beautiful, I love how extroverted they are, how weird they are, like and see the positive things in life…
ENTJ - calm, relaxed, rely on experience…
ENTP - nerdy, extroverted, full of ideas…

ESFJ - I am very attracted to this type (especially women). Controlling, bossy, good-hearted, usually the “glue” that keeps groups together…
ESFP - fun-loving, easy-going, sometimes keep to themselves…
ESTJ - very manly, strong, brave, reliable…
ESTP - more kind-hearted than one might think, sometimes keep to themselves, like sports…

INFJ - bubbly, cute, like pop culture…
INFP - quiet, imaginative, see the good in people, idealistic…
INTJ - my favorite type now…data-driven, have realistic goals, some are somewhat jerks (which I like, haha.)
INTP - used to be my favorite type, kind-hearted, smart, see all possibilities, work hard, etc.

ISFJ - people pleasers, beautiful, kind, pragmatic…
ISFP - accept reality as it is, artistic…
ISTJ - I like this type, “daddy”, realistic, pragmatic…
ISTP - I also like this type. Nerdy, detail-oriented, live in the moment…

 

[Curious Catzilla]

All are fake overgeneralizations that don't actually work. Personality is not well understood by the psych field currently. There are numerous personality constructs, but the Big Five is the most scientific. Even that is teeming with conceptual flaws.

In one of the less popularized constructs, you can be an introverted-extrovert, an introverted-introvert, and other equivalent combinations. None of the personality systems are profoundly insightful or accurate.

Personally, I think it's because shortcuts like these are impossible. When I'm mapping out anyone's psychological architecture, I see a plethora of conditional logic that is decided by experiences and the individual's interactions with the information. Most of them are irrational and unconscious. There are genetic factors, but there are far more variations than sixteen conveniently organized clusters. The common patterns, such as those in MBTI, are mere products of culture, which happens to have been Jung's largest oversight. The social abnormalities of my upbringing have given me an advantage in this domain, as my home culture remained foreign to me and offered the benefits entailed in an outside perspective. Myers and Briggs lacked the psychoeducation to do anything useful with his work the way they tried to. Until geneticists better understand the cellular voodoo that is DNA, we will fail to correctly identify patterns in naturally occurring facets of personality.

 

[Fate—]

All are fake overgeneralizations that don't actually work. Personality is not well understood by the psych field currently. There are numerous personality constructs, but the Big Five is the most scientific. Even that is teeming with conceptual flaws.

In one of the less popularized constructs, you can be an introverted-extrovert, an introverted-introvert, and other equivalent combinations. None of the personality systems are profoundly insightful or accurate.

Personally, I think it's because shortcuts like these are impossible. When I'm mapping out anyone's psychological architecture, I see a plethora of conditional logic that is decided by experiences and the individual's interactions with the information. Most of them are irrational and unconscious. There are genetic factors, but there are far more variations than sixteen conveniently organized clusters. The common patterns, such as those in MBTI, are mere products of culture, which happens to have been Jung's largest oversight. The social abnormalities of my upbringing have given me an advantage in this domain, as my home culture remained foreign to me and offered the benefits entailed in an outside perspective. Myers and Briggs lacked the psychoeducation to do anything useful with his work the way they tried to. Until geneticists better understand the cellular voodoo that is DNA, we will fail to correctly identify patterns in naturally occurring facets of personality.

How close do you think is MBTI to predicting personality patterns?? Or do you think it’s impossible??

Do you think the MBTI cognitive functions test is any useful to most real-life applications??

Do you think anything will replace MBTI??

 

[SensEye]

How close do you think is MBTI to predicting personality patterns?? Or do you think it’s impossible??

Do you think the MBTI cognitive functions test is any useful to most real-life applications??

Do you think anything will replace MBTI??

I'll take a crack at answering these. My impression is that Curious Catzilla is a personality type skeptic.

1) How close do you think is MBTI to predicting personality patterns?? Or do you think it’s impossible?? - I think MBTI is quite good at predicting personality patterns at the high level, so in a general sense. It breaks down a bit at the individual level, as individuals will display too much personal variance.

2) Do you think the MBTI cognitive functions test is any useful to most real-life applications?? - Yes, but again only in a general sense. If I know somebody's MBTI it is usually useful in shaping my communication style with that individual. It can be useful to avoid conflicts. It might have some relevance in aptitude type tests, but I would be cautious in this regard as any type can probably learn to do any job, it's more a matter of how contented they might be.

3) Do you think anything will replace MBTI?? - Some of the other typing systems are probably equally as valid, however, I don't think any are notably superior. So MBTI is as good as the next. Something better could come along, but given the difficulties in broad personality assessment tools and low motivation to improve them, I don't expect much advancement.

 

[Curious Catzilla]

How close do you think is MBTI to predicting personality patterns?? Or do you think it’s impossible??

Do you think the MBTI cognitive functions test is any useful to most real-life applications??

Do you think anything will replace MBTI??

I don't think it's impossible, as there are only so many permutations. I think it's impossible using approaches that are similar to those of MBTI, Socionics, Enneagram, and other modern personality taxonomy.

Subjective experience isn't objectively quantifiable, so I can't offer conclusions beyond personal opinions. I think it offers some benefits; nothing is linear. I imagine it's far from most. I don't think the pros outweigh the cons. They probably could if no one actually believed the constructs were true, but that's unrealistic.

Trick question, as it never subsisted in psychoeducated populations. These forums are very niche for a reason; most professionals consider it to be an outdated pseudoscience. The further knowledge advances, the more distant it will grow from our acceptance of reality—just as ancient Greek personality constructs about phlegm and bile are to modern society. Big Five is considered the latest "replacement" if you will, but I guarantee it isn't going to be the last.

For now, I see no point in developing additional personality theories. I think there are countless factors that form conceptual perforations and we're trying to obtain carts before we have horses, so to speak. Those who wish to zero in on personality would be better off advancing research in genetics; we need to take the stairs one or two steps at a time rather than trying to teleport to the second floor.

 

[Curious Catzilla]

I'll take a crack at answering these. My impression is that Curious Catzilla is a personality type skeptic.

There are differences between a skeptic and a critic. One questions but requires further information, and the other evaluates information to identify weaknesses that could be improved. A skeptic's goal is to determine validity, while a critic's intention is to judge value or flaws. I am an MBTI critic.

Determining the most relatable type is simple when efficient methods are used, but it's comparable to deciding which astrological sign resonates: it doesn't make them real.

 

[SensEye]

There are differences between a skeptic and a critic. One questions but requires further information, and the other evaluates information to identify weaknesses that could be improved. A skeptic's goal is to determine validity, while a critic's intention is to judge value or flaws. I am an MBTI critic.

Determining the most relatable type is simple when efficient methods are used, but it's comparable to deciding which astrological sign resonates: it doesn't make them real.

It sounds in the latter statement you are being a skeptic - questioning the validity of MBTI in comparison to astrology (real or not). I would also question what the difference between something that is invalid and something that has little or no value (as in use). It's almost the same thing.

Certainly MBTI has flaws, but if you are claiming it has no value, then we disagree.

 

[Curious Catzilla]

It sounds in the latter statement you are being a skeptic - questioning the validity of MBTI in comparison to astrology (real or not).

I was speaking from the premise that astrological signs are obviously woo-woo nonsense, but the purpose of this juxtaposition was to offer a simplified illustration of fallacious reasoning that causes so many to believe the MBTI depicts reality.

I would also question what the difference between something that is invalid and something that has little or no value (as in use). It's almost the same thing.

Certainly MBTI has flaws, but if you are claiming it has no value, then we disagree.

I seldomly speak in absolutes because I'm nearly incapable of linear thinking. It's a double-edged sword. That said, invalid doesn't equate to useless. This statement applies dialectical thinking; if you reflect on this term, you will generate answers of your own. People can learn something from everything, and the rest boils down to opportunity costs. You may not get a wall, but you'll collect a few bricks. You're probably better off stopping by a store with more bricks.

 

[SensEye]

Fair enough. We can just agree to disagree. You say invalid doesn't equate to useless (in regards to MBTI). My position is MBTI is generally valid and therefore useful. If you don't find it so, you are of course free to ignore it (and other type systems) when dealing with people.

Recall, that I only engaged in this thread as Fate was asking about opinions about other MBTI types. You replied but you are not really into MBTI. I thought a response from someone who does consider MBTI generally valid would be useful given the topic under discussion.

 

[Fate—]

Fair enough. We can just agree to disagree. You say invalid doesn't equate to useless (in regards to MBTI). My position is MBTI is generally valid and therefore useful. If you don't find it so, you are of course free to ignore it (and other type systems) when dealing with people.

Recall, that I only engaged in this thread as Fate was asking about opinions about other MBTI types. You replied but you are not really into MBTI. I thought a response from someone who does consider MBTI generally valid would be useful given the topic under discussion.

Feel free to contribute to the topic if you want to. I want to hear from your experiences from all the types in real life. MBTI might not be really a mean to an end…