• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Why MBTI? A rebuttal.

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
A modern example is INTPs v INTJs. INTJs respect Te, cold, hard, physical testing. INTPs respect Ti logic and consistency. If you are talking to an INTP, express logic. They will not be impressed by scientific studies. If you are talking to an INTJ, they will be impressed by scientific studies. They will not be impressed by clever logic.

Great example.
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 9:36 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
249
-->
MBTI kind of sucks, but the Jungian stuff is pretty cool. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how it applies and doesn't and what it means and after all of that it has given me an ability to apply abstract concepts to people in a way that is empirically objective and rather insightful to personality.

It's the map and not the territory as someone said, but you can make a pretty clarifying and insightful map, if you're willing to put in the painstaking time and effort to build a sharp intuition of human dynamics.

But MBTI is built on stereotypes, which is definitely pretty lame.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
MBTI kind of sucks, but the Jungian stuff is pretty cool. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how it applies and doesn't and what it means and after all of that it has given me an ability to apply abstract concepts to people in a way that is empirically objective and rather insightful to personality.

It's the map and not the territory as someone said, but you can make a pretty clarifying and insightful map, if you're willing to put in the painstaking time and effort to build a sharp intuition of human dynamics.

But MBTI is built on stereotypes, which is definitely pretty lame.

It's a starting-point for you to build your own understanding.

Especially if you think humans are generally inscrutable.
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 9:36 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
249
-->
It's a starting-point for you to build your own understanding.

Especially if you think humans are generally inscrutable.

Honestly, this is just a lazy way of compartmentalizing it as subjective so you don't have to give it any credence, especially if you think that humans are impossible to understand.

Sorry, but you can break down human behavior into basic forms and construct an individual and complex understanding based on those forms.
It's like recognizing what a chair is; there is no completely objective understanding of what a chair is, but we know what it is when we see it and experience it and we can experience first-hand the uniqueness of every chair, while still knowing it's a chair. Forms can be more or less objective/subjective and it really depends. So saying it is just my understanding is a bit absurd if you don't know how objective or subjective my understanding really is...
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
It's a starting-point for you to build your own understanding.

Especially if you think humans are generally inscrutable.

Honestly, this is just a lazy way of compartmentalizing it as subjective so you don't have to give it any credence, especially if you think that humans are impossible to understand.

Sorry, but you can break down human behavior into basic forms and construct an individual and complex understanding based on those forms.
It's like recognizing what a chair is; there is no completely objective understanding of what a chair is, but we know what it is when we see it and experience it and we can experience first-hand the uniqueness of every chair, while still knowing it's a chair. Forms can be more or less objective/subjective and it really depends. So saying it is just my understanding is a bit absurd if you don't know how objective or subjective my understanding really is...

Human experience and human knowledge is FUNDAMENTALY SUBJECTIVE.

QUANTA is empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).

QUALIA is experiential, personal, private, gnostic (and emotionally meaningful).

Claiming your "understanding" is in any way "objective" is absurd.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 7:36 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,555
-->
Location
crib
MBTI is not empirically verified because MBTI does not test the functions as Jung described them. A test is a wrong method because functions are in the psyche/in the mind. Mental things cannot just be gauged by thermometers or "tests". People require people to be understood. A person must be evaluated on how their mind operates. This is imperfect because people are imperfect. That does not mean some are not highly accurate. It takes a mind to know a mind.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
MBTI is not empirically verified because MBTI does not test the functions as Jung described them. A test is a wrong method because functions are in the psyche/in the mind. Mental things cannot just be gauged by thermometers or "tests". People require people to be understood. A person must be evaluated on how their mind operates. This is imperfect because people are imperfect. That does not mean some are not highly accurate. It takes a mind to know a mind.

Suggesting it's "not perfect" (whatever the heck that means) does not "prove" that it has ZERO-UTILITY.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 9:36 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
249
-->
Especially if you think humans are generally inscrutable.

Honestly, this is just a lazy way of compartmentalizing it as subjective so you don't have to give it any credence, especially if you think that humans are impossible to understand.

Sorry, but you can break down human behavior into basic forms and construct an individual and complex understanding based on those forms.
It's like recognizing what a chair is; there is no completely objective understanding of what a chair is, but we know what it is when we see it and experience it and we can experience first-hand the uniqueness of every chair, while still knowing it's a chair. Forms can be more or less objective/subjective and it really depends. So saying it is just my understanding is a bit absurd if you don't know how objective or subjective my understanding really is...

Human experience and human knowledge is FUNDAMENTALY SUBJECTIVE.

QUANTA is empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).

QUALIA is experiential, personal, private, gnostic (and emotionally meaningful).

Claiming your "understanding" is in any way "objective" is absurd.
I’d have a lot to say, but you didn’t explain how your first statement relates to the next two statements and how it justifies your last statement. And I can see many possibilities. Explain how you logically connect these things together please because they have many different meanings and crossovers as far I understand them.
 

BurnedOut

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 8:06 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
852
-->
Everything has some utility in it. However, if that utility's procurement has no utility then is it safe to say that the thing with some utility is useless? Of course. How else would you process and filter useful information?
Suggesting it's "not perfect" (whatever the heck that means) does not "prove" that it has ZERO-UTILITY.
If the intrinsic utility of an object incurs an opportunity cost, the utility is negated. If you can use a hammer instead of kicking a nail in, you derive more utility with the former than the latter and if you choose the latter, you are foregoing potential utility. You got your job done but if it is shoddy, it will bite you in the ass in the future. Economics elaborates very well on the topic of making the right choices after considering their consequences.

If your statement is considered, every antiquated thing has no reason to be so. Then even sexism has got some utility. Men will have more opportunities. What about that?

Claiming your "understanding" is in any way "objective" is absurd.
Also this is a really absurd statement given your ramblings about MBTI's utility. Think about it pragmatically.

Understanding is not just interpretation but a mode of interacting with the real world. 'Proper' understanding is nothing but correctly establishing causality of a particular object that is verifiable. If I understand correctly that MBTI is useless, I will focus more on establishing rapport and using empathy and consider each person nuanced and invidualistic. If I proceed with understanding improperly then I will color my perspective with Jungian functions and inhumanely proceeding with disregarding everything that seems out of place. Suppose if gender is a part of MBTI (actually, it is blatantly sexist), it becomes obvious that you end up believing archaically that women are mostly going to be emotional while disregarding the fact that their behaviour is a result of the way they are treated in the society and also ignoring that in their personal lives, they are just as likely to be logical. Just because conventionally women like clothing and generally sharing feelings among themselves does not automatically make them more F. It is because of history. Then how is it that women are also shown to be pragmatic and logical than men in relationships and necessary affairs?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 7:36 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,555
-->
Location
crib
It is possible to notice patterns in people.
That is all you need if you are gauging utility.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Also this is a really absurd statement given your ramblings about MBTI's utility. Think about it pragmatically.

Before you go on another rant about how MBTI is "worthless" in your personal opinion,

How do you explain my result from your "vastly superior" "bigfive" ??

The "bigfive" result confirms my MBTI result.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
I’d have a lot to say, but you didn’t explain how your first statement relates to the next two statements and how it justifies your last statement.

Please address them as independent claims.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,045
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
One way to approach MBTI is once know what it is and how it works....

you define clear objectives that is the way you want to use it.

I do not think MBTI is that useful with people you interact with very little.

Many people try to use MBTI like horoscope.

Oh you are a capricorn, so this the reason why you hate my hat... type of thing.

If you want to use MBTI this way of course you are going to be upset that it is useless.

I cannot really tell you how to use MBTI if you do not have clear objectives.

However the way you achieve those objectives is up to you alone.

No one can tell you have your personality interacts with people on everyday personal day to day, because that is not what MBTI is.

MBTI is typology not a personality test.

You are your own unique individual despite arguing that MBTI does not describe your unique personality and merely downplays it and reduces it to four letters.

Its not the job of MBTI to tell you who you are as individual it is there to tell you what type of person you are when interacting with other types.

So if you try to use MBTI on say a school group project which is 2 days long and the people doing the project are not even emotionally or cognitively invested in it, its like trying to tell how strong is a weightlifter who does not want to lift weights.
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 9:36 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
249
-->

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
I’d have a lot to say, but you didn’t explain how your first statement relates to the next two statements and how it justifies your last statement.

Please address them as independent claims.
So you have no point then.

The claims appear to be self-evident.

If you have a specific criticism or objection or counter-factual, please present those objections one at a time.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
One way to approach MBTI is once know what it is and how it works....

you define clear objectives that is the way you want to use it.

I do not think MBTI is that useful with people you interact with very little.

Many people try to use MBTI like horoscope.

Oh you are a capricorn, so this the reason why you hate my hat... type of thing.

If you want to use MBTI this way of course you are going to be upset that it is useless.

I cannot really tell you how to use MBTI if you do not have clear objectives.

However the way you achieve those objectives is up to you alone.

No one can tell you have your personality interacts with people on everyday personal day to day, because that is not what MBTI is.

MBTI is typology not a personality test.

You are your own unique individual despite arguing that MBTI does not describe your unique personality and merely downplays it and reduces it to four letters.

Its not the job of MBTI to tell you who you are as individual it is there to tell you what type of person you are when interacting with other types.

So if you try to use MBTI on say a school group project which is 2 days long and the people doing the project are not even emotionally or cognitively invested in it, its like trying to tell how strong is a weightlifter who does not want to lift weights.

What do you believe is the "proper application" of MBTI ?
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
@scorpiomover mover
You have not falsified any of the core arguments I have provided.

Your MBTI is a general problem-solving-strategy, NOT a "personality".
MBTI tries to transcend beyond neuroscience and psychology altogether. Notwithstanding the fact that there are tomes of literature lying around that talk about how difficult it is to measure even a single personality trait and its phenotypic expressions, MBTI happily lumps people into categories as if it has successfully integrated psychology with neuroscience. MBTI should be restricted to TV Show character analyses. It lacks all the theoretical moorings required to be even called a science.
According to science, negative criticism is so harmful, that for one criticism, it takes 10 praises to remove its harmful effects.

You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.

Why are you ANTI-SCIENCE?

Despite being an 'INTP', I show traits of various personality types across the MBTI - INTJ, INFJ, INFP and all of them apply equally likely to me. My sensory perception is also strong enough to get me deemed as a Sensor. In fact, I kept receiving ISTP for a long time until I realized that the sadass questionnaire tries to implement a zero-sum strategy that can be better applied to microorganisms' rudimentary functions.

MBTI should be represented with caricatures. For example - An INTP has a big brain and an ISTP has big hands and an ESTP has a big dick and an ENFP has big lips, etc
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


You have also spectacularly failed at convincing anybody here that MBTI is actually useful.
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


You are not explaining the logic behind MBTI or Jung.
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


You explicitly mentioned that Jung is not a psychologist which destroys MBTI completely.
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


@LOGICZOMBIE and @ZenRaiden all this horn tooting about MBTI not being bull, there is not a single practical usage you have mentioned.
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


I laid out a rough exposition that adequately expresses my gripes with MBTI without making it a complete harangue. All three of you keep harping like fucking ISIS converts about MBTI being useful without explaining why it is actually useful.
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


Oh and the greatest irony! All three of you have tested INTPs. Is it not fucking stupid that none of you have your 'Ti' which is suppose to 'make things make sense logically internally and fit in a consistent internal framework' is working here?
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


All I can see is a bunch of 'religious ISFJ' fighting tooth and nail with pebbles as arguments in front of my fairly big rocks as arguments in which I am putting in a thousand times more effort to be objective laying out logical inconsistencies in a manner that is easily understandable.
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


For the sake of your own INTPness, stop being fucking zealots.
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


It is annoying.
I appreciate that you are feeling frustrated that I am not praising Big Five and psychologists to the hilt. It is frustrating when you make an argument, and other people don't automatically agree.

But it takes a lot of effort to come up with good reasoning.

So either you are frustrated, or you have to put in a lot of effort. Either way, you'll have to expend a lot of mental energy.

Would it not therefore be more rational and scientific to expend your mental energies in trying to think out your reasoning more, so your reasoning is better?


Science is about the evidence. If a theory is untestable, the evidence will tell you nothing about its validity and soundness.

A scientific theory is one where you are 99% sure it is wrong, but where it is more accurate to the evidence than anything you have to offer.

E.g. Newtonian heliocentrism. Look out the window. The sky and the stars move around the Earth. But when you look at the movement of the planets in detail, they move as if we're moving in an elliptical orbit and so are they.

E.G. open-mindedness. If everyone in the world was sure that there was no such thing as open-mindedness or closed-mindedness, and Big Five scientists looked at the evidence and proved there was such a thing as open-mindedness and it changed from person to person, then it would be a scientific theory.

MBTI is a gateway for lazy stereotyping because every type ends up competing with another.
That's just people being competitive and using MBTI to help them, just like they'll try to claim that other people are inferior and they should get the job because they're not black, not a woman, not racist, not sexist, have a high IQ, are uber-rational, uber-competent, never wrong, always have a solution, support BLM, support gay marriage, are tall, good-looking, sexy, and are go-getters, who "get things done".

Now, show me people who are NEVER competitive in ANY way, and most of them still compete on type, and THEN you can say the above.

But IME, people who don't like to be competitive, do so by choice, not because they can't. Even if they can compete using MBTI, they still won't, because they CHOOSE not to be competitive.

People who are competitive, will use lots of things to help them compete, MBTI being only one out of many.

So it strikes me that those who compete over MBTI, compete over 1,000 other things, and those who don't compete over MBTI, don't compete over 1,000 other things.

So MBTI is independent of the competition. The competition is a result of the person who uses it, not MBTI.
Such logic adequately explains why social media has increased depression rates right?
What exactly has the connection between social media and depression got to do with my logic?

You're trying to ridicule my arguments.

You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


Or why marijuana abuse is increasing because the plants are more potent?
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


Of course, these things have to do with people and not social media or marijuana. Kudos to your logic.
If you're being honest, you're saying I'm right.

If you're being sarcastic, then you are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.


As if people are not capable of using more resources to make themselves more miserable. Oh, why don't you explain to all of us why polar partisanship in US keeps increasing due to social media?
You're trying to ridicule my arguments.

You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.

You are not defending Big Five, or neuroscience, or psychology. You're doing the very opposite of what science says, and particularly what psychology says.

Why do you hate psychology so much that you keep doing the exact opposite of what psychology says?
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS are "anti-conversation" and "anti-reason".

SCATHING CRITIQUE (on the other hand) is an extremely valuable commodity.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE.

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS are "anti-conversation" and "anti-reason".

SCATHING CRITIQUE (on the other hand) is an extremely valuable commodity.
1) Ad homs are not reasonable, if the problem is the post and not the poster.

2) A comprehensive fair critique is reasonable.

Scathing critiques are also stupid.

You don't use a nuke to kill a gopher, not unless you want to kill the children in the house as well.

3) He was claiming that MBTI was unscientific, while being unscientific.

I doubt that anyone would have had a problem with him criticising MBTI, as long as it was constructive criticism.

I don't think MBTI is perfect. Do you think it's perfect?

4) It's one thing to preach that people should abstain from alcohol while being an alcoholic. But this aspect of ignoring science was his delivery system for his message. It would be like a doctor giving a vaccine using dirty needles.

If you're going to give someone a vaccine, at least clean the needle first.

Likewise, if you are going to criticise something or someone for being unscientific in a post, at least make sure the post itself is not doing the opposite of what scientists say.

5) In this case, @BurnedOut was giving out lots of ad homs to @LOGICZOMBIE and @ZenRaiden and to me.

I can choose to overlook/forgive him for insulting me. That is my personal choice.

But when he is harming you and @ZenRaiden, how can I overlook that?

6) If I overlook this, then I'm basically saying that I don't care at all about science.

If you and the other posters do the same, then no-one here cares about science.

Do you want to be on a forum where anti-science rules?
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
If you and the other posters do the same, then no-one here cares about science.

Ok, I admire your sense of justice and fairness.

But I'm not sure you and I are currently on the same page regarding the definition of "science".

Would you perhaps, maybe be kind enough to make your personally preferred definition of "science" explicit ?
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
If you and the other posters do the same, then no-one here cares about science.

Ok, I admire your sense of justice and fairness.

But I'm not sure you and I are currently on the same page regarding the definition of "science".

Would you perhaps, maybe be kind enough to make your personally preferred definition of "science" explicit ?
I generally consider the meaning of words to not be what I think they mean, but how they are used by others.

"Science" can refer to:
1) The inviolable laws of nature
2) The total body of human knowledge regarding the physical, mental, emotional and behavioural properties of the inanimate objects, living organisms and people in the universe.
3) What scientists are saying at the moment.

It's not always clear to me which one of those is being used at any one time.

But in this case, I am referring to #3 (as well as #2 and #1). I've been reading and hearing from scientists about the harm of negative criticism, for over 40 years. This is one of those things where new evidence seems to consistently show the same results, over and over and over, and where it seems that all psychologists and scientists seem to agree on.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
This is one of those things where new evidence seems to consistently show the same results, over and over and over, and where it seems that all psychologists and scientists seem to agree on.

Ok, and while I do agree that GENERALLY criticism that is perceived by the receiver as "negative" is GENERALLY less "effective", this is not a UNIVERSAL TRUISM.

SCIENCE is the observation and documentation of empirically demonstrable phenomena.

The CONCLUSIONS that are drawn from this observation and documentation are NOT "science".
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
This is one of those things where new evidence seems to consistently show the same results, over and over and over, and where it seems that all psychologists and scientists seem to agree on.

 

BurnedOut

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 8:06 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
852
-->
Lol. You guys are still harping about my 'personal opinions' when I was providing a rather holistic perspective with evidences. Kudos to your little fucking tea club.

Also, @scorpiomover. Where are the counter-arguments? Going off on a tangent by using some kind of slapstick performance expressing satire and calling my arguments unscientific is cheap. Why are they unscientific? Oh well, now blabber about what science is. I asked for explanations.

What were my ad homs? I attacked none of your characters. If MBTI is so badly reputed as evident by its rejection by psychology on absolutely valid grounds, who is really the moron here? You who proudly call yourselves INTPs despite presenting logical arguments or me who is actually considering MBTI's criticism?

Also what is so unscientific and incorrect about my criticism. Never mind. Don't do it. Now, go ahead quote the preceding 3 lines.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Also what is so unscientific and incorrect about my criticism.

Your criticism is fantastic.

And I even agree with your "BIGFIVE" stuff.

The strange thing is that your "BIGFIVE" produced an analysis that CONFIRMS INTP.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,045
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Lol. You guys are still harping about my 'personal opinions' when I was providing a rather holistic perspective with evidences. Kudos to your little fucking tea club.

Also, @scorpiomover. Where are the counter-arguments? Going off on a tangent by using some kind of slapstick performance expressing satire and calling my arguments unscientific is cheap. Why are they unscientific? Oh well, now blabber about what science is. I asked for explanations.

What were my ad homs? I attacked none of your characters. If MBTI is so badly reputed as evident by its rejection by psychology on absolutely valid grounds, who is really the moron here? You who proudly call yourselves INTPs despite presenting logical arguments or me who is actually considering MBTI's criticism?

Also what is so unscientific and incorrect about my criticism. Never mind. Don't do it. Now, go ahead quote the preceding 3 lines.
You do not need MBTI to understand people. MBTI is recent invention. Humans have been around lot longer.

You talk as if you use science for everything in life.

As if every step of the way you understand ever appliance, every, motor vehicle, every material, every natural law, and understand every single pixel on your screen and how it got there.

We do not understand human brains. Period.

If we did we would not need MBTI. Or personality theories of any kind or classrooms, or books or internet or stuff like politics or economy theories or whatever.

With science psychology would be a void field. What is the point of psychology if you have it all figured out?????

However science does not work the way people think.

You are way too young to understand.

No not stupid young. Young as in you have no concept of history and time.

No concept of effort and endurance or concept of deeper understanding.

No young person can have such concepts. They come with age.

Your brain is subject to same cognitive bias as all humans smart or stupid in many specific ways.

Your mind can deal only with information it has, no matter how sciency you get.

Unfortunately many people believe that science is all there is to human existence.

As if only science can explain things.

Its boderline unscientific to believe that science has all the answers especially when science is in the business of looking for and providing answers.

Science is limited to human brain.

Human brain is limited. Period.

No matter how smart or how much you think you can do science well its still limited.

Objectively faith in science is good and absolutely necessary to sustain life on Earth.

Unfortunately many people think that science is some sort of magic hat where you can just declare yourself as all knowing being that has all the answers.

Science is important. Unfortunately science is hard. Its financially difficult and time consuming. It requires huge amount of patience.

Science is not always rewarded by society despite society telling everyone that scientist are smart and good people.

There are literally professional scientist starving financially doing important research.

Many scientist do have brains for science, but not for finance.
Many scientist compete between each other as if they are eating one piece of cake instead of trying to collaborate. This was true in past and is true today.

Many scientists are not independent thinkers.

They are often coerced by the system to work on flawed science, because otherwise they cannot make money.

Many scientists are not even aware of their own bias or coercion of the system.

They are too compliant and follow the norms, because its easier and makes more money. Makes everyone happy.

If you are smart, make sure you are devoted to the truth, but if you want to be really free of bias and human hubris, societal pressures, and crappy academic hoops,

you either have to grow real thick skin or learn to be financially independent.

Not many scientists are financially independent or even financially secure.

This is the reason why science is not always honest. It cannot afford to be.

It takes lots of balls to be able to state facts without being afraid of having your pay take away or become an academic outcast.

Lots of good science is done explicitly within the financial domain of human society.

However many things in psychology are only part science, part experience, part guessing, part human dynamics.

Dynamic systems like humans, with emergent properties all having unique mind properties due to genetics and unique development are hard to understand
with current knowledge be it in neurology, or psychology or anything.

Why would we be any smarter just by sticking electrodes into rat brains anyhow?????

How do you solve marital problems, or collaboration at work with such science?

How do you solve crime or addiction with science?

Surely science can give clues, but we already have so much science behind human minds, and these things are still present.

So yes sometimes bullshit pseudoscience like MBTI can do better than science.

All the big scientist have to do is come along and give people something better than MBTI. That is all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
Lol. You guys are still harping about my 'personal opinions' when I was providing a rather holistic perspective with evidences. Kudos to your little fucking tea club.
Tea club? No-one told me about it. Was there an email?
Also, @scorpiomover. Where are the counter-arguments?
Counter-arguments for what?
Whether MBTI has validity or not?
Whether Big Five has validity or not?

Going off on a tangent by using some kind of slapstick performance expressing satire and calling my arguments unscientific is cheap. Why are they unscientific? Oh well, now blabber about what science is. I asked for explanations.
1) If you want to know if something is true or false, you need to take an unbiased viewpoint. You can raise the pros and cons.

But if you make some kind of passionate argument for one of them, then you're emotionally biased towards one of the answers, and that will skew your interpretation of your results towards the conclusion you desired, independently of what the data actually shows.

A lot of psychological studies have this problem, because they tend to pick things where the psychologists involved in the study have a preference towards some of the possible answers.

2) MBTI & Big Five can both be invalid. MBTI & Big Five can both be valid.
They are different systems. If Big Five is valid, that doesn't invalidate MBTI. If MBTI is invalid, that doesn't validate Big Five.

So there are 3 relevant questions:
A) Under what conditions is MBTI valid?
B) Under what conditions is Big Five valid?
C) If both are valid, under what conditions does MBTI or Big Five take precendence?

THOSE questions matter regarding MBTI and Big Five, because they help us understand when and how to use either MBTI or Big Five.

Those elements of your arguments that can give precise and accurate answers regarding these questions, are useful to address those questions. The rest is not useful, because it doesn't help us understand when and how to use either MBTI or Big Five.

FYI, "Never" is not a valid answer unless you can prove it's impossible. That's just a strategy to rationalise bias.

What were my ad homs?
You could have just said "I disagree and here is why".

If you didn't want to continue the conversation, but didn't want to give the impression that you were agreeing with other people, you could have said "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree." and left it at that.

Instead, you wrote all this:
@scorpiomover mover
You have not falsified any of the core arguments I have provided. You have also spectacularly failed at convincing anybody here that MBTI is actually useful. You are not explaining the logic behind MBTI or Jung. You explicitly mentioned that Jung is not a psychologist which destroys MBTI completely.
@LOGICZOMBIE and @ZenRaiden all this horn tooting about MBTI not being bull, there is not a single practical usage you have mentioned. I laid out a rough exposition that adequately expresses my gripes with MBTI without making it a complete harangue. All three of you keep harping like fucking ISIS converts about MBTI being useful without explaining why it is actually useful. Oh and the greatest irony! All three of you have tested INTPs. Is it not fucking stupid that none of you have your 'Ti' which is suppose to 'make things make sense logically internally and fit in a consistent internal framework' is working here? All I can see is a bunch of 'religious ISFJ' fighting tooth and nail with pebbles as arguments in front of my fairly big rocks as arguments in which I am putting in a thousand times more effort to be objective laying out logical inconsistencies in a manner that is easily understandable. For the sake of your own INTPness, stop being fucking zealots. It is annoying.
If you said those to an ISTP in a pub, you'd be nursing a broken nose right now. So those are ad-homs.

So MBTI is independent of the competition. The competition is a result of the person who uses it, not MBTI.
Such logic adequately explains why social media has increased depression rates right?
If a person is competitive, they can use lots of things to help them. Unless someone has a moral value that they'd never use a personality theory for selfish motives, why wouldn't they use Big Five to compete with?

Whether or not people are more depressed or less depressed because of social media, that answer remains the same.


Or why marijuana abuse is increasing because the plants are more potent?
Again, whether or not marijuana abuse is increasing because the plants are more potent, the answer to my question about people using Big Five to compete with, remains the same.

But IME, in the mid-90s, the news was forever talking about how lots of teens were smoking super-skunk. In the 1970s, we had films about Cheech and Chong smoking super-blunts that were like a gigantic carrot. Since the 1970s, people were doing bongs to inhale the stuff directly into their lungs.

The plants are NOT more potent.

When people are feeling down, they drink more, or do more drugs. You just said that depression rates are up. Would it make more sense if the rise in depression was the cause of people doing more drugs.?

Of course, these things have to do with people and not social media or marijuana. Kudos to your logic. As if people are not capable of using more resources to make themselves more miserable.
Lots of people never touched MJ. Lots of people smoke it every day. It's not just about increased supply. It's also about increased demand.

Oh, why don't you explain to all of us why polar partisanship in US keeps increasing due to social media?
Again, whether or not polar partisanship in US keeps increasing due to social media, the answer to my question about people using Big Five to compete with, remains the same.

But there some issues with your question. It assumes that polar partisanship in the US keeps increasing. It also assumes that the increase is caused by social media.

The first time someone mentioned polar partisanship to me, was in the UK during the mid-80s. I was in a youth group. The group leader was asking if there was any polarisation going on. Usually, some people said yes, some said no, some were not that clear. This time, it was "yes", "yes", "yes, I've seen it myself", and so on. 100% unanimous agreement, and that was in the 1980s.

I've seen the polarisation increase gradually since then.

So can I say that it's because of social media? Not unless social media has been going on since the 1980s.

But I would say the name-calling got quite extreme during 2016 to 2020, and I don't know any people who would want to remain friends with anyone who talked about them like that, whatever party they supported.

So I would say that political polarisation is often a result of a party's political strategy and what that does to their supporters.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
I will try to address your issues:

Your MBTI is a general problem-solving-strategy, NOT a "personality".
MBTI tries to transcend beyond neuroscience and psychology altogether.
MBTI was developed in the mid-20th century, long before modern neuroscience and the attitudes in modern psychology.

Even if Myers and Briggs had known about how to say things using modern jargon as used in modern neuroscience and modern psychology, the neuroscientists and psychologists of the time, didn't.

You have to think of what they wrote in context of how those same concepts would have been described then, using the sort of language that Myers and Briggs would have used, not your jargon and technical terminology.

I realise that uses a lot of mental effort. So we expect it of people employed to think all day like scientists, but not of your average plumber.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are tomes of literature lying around that talk about how difficult it is to measure even a single personality trait and its phenotypic expressions,
Have you ever thought that the difficulty might be that your approach might be the wrong way to look at the issue?

MBTI happily lumps people into categories as if it has successfully integrated psychology with neuroscience.
Neuroscience is the physical map of the brain. Psychology is it's live-data VR equivalent. It would be bizarre if they weren't integrated.

MBTI should be restricted to TV Show character analyses.
When it is convenient for your employers, they will pay to have MBTI's reputation destroyed.

Right now, it's not the right time for that. So they're paying just enough people to keep MBTI alive right now.

It lacks all the theoretical moorings required to be even called a science.
I have not seen you list the theoretical moorings required for something to be called a science. Can you please list your sources for this rule?

Perhaps you meant that you have no authority and are just making an opinion. OK. What are these theoretical moorings?
If we find sciences that are excluded by your rules, or things that are not sciences that are included, then your rules have no basis.

Right now, you have presented nothing but spurious claims where you have not presented any hard facts, only general notions, and nothing all that specific.

Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that MBTI was constructed on the basis of it being an official psychological science. But we haven't really got that level of detail yet with psychology, except in terms of case histories.
Despite being an 'INTP', I show traits of various personality types across the MBTI - INTJ, INFJ, INFP and all of them apply equally likely to me.
A lot of free-to-read, online descriptions do not describe exclusive diagnostic traits, as it takes a lot of painstaking effort to check that they are almost ubiquitous in one type of personality, and almost unheard of in any other type of personality, and they're just free blogs that were written as a hobby.

But there are certain things that each of those types do, that the others definitely don't do.

When INTPs are in a situation that is stressful and demands their full attention, they prefer to be completely without emotion, so they can max out their brain's rational computing power to come up with a viable answer ASAP. When the crisis is over, they can just power up the old emotions again, and enjoy themselves with their friends.

Over the years, older INTPs have learned more about the positive sides of emotions, and so are more open to the idea of thinking and feeling simultaneously. But the default reaction still remains to go cold and emotionless, as if ice feels warm to the touch.

INFJs and INFPs do NOT like completely divorcing themselves from emotions, even temporarily, as it's what they use to navigate life.

My sensory perception is also strong enough to get me deemed as a Sensor.
Whether you are a Sensor or an Intuitive, is down to one question: if you were a psychologist studying Big Five, would you look at the evidence and do the experiment that logically makes sense to do next, or would you do something crazy that popped into your head from nowhere, but you're sure is meaningful?

If the answer is that you'd look at the evidence and do what makes sense, you are a SENSOR.

If you say "I know it's crazy. But I HAVE to do the latter. It usually works better for me." Then you're an INTUITIVE.

In fact, I kept receiving ISTP for a long time until I realized that the sadass questionnaire tries to implement a zero-sum strategy that can be better applied to microorganisms' rudimentary functions.
If you are paying for a professional service, then you should have demanded your money back.

If you're not paying for a professional service, then you cannot expect a professional service.

MBTI should be represented with caricatures. For example - An INTP has a big brain and an ISTP has big hands and an ESTP has a big dick and an ENFP has big lips, etc
That's usually how MBTI is described on the internet anyway, except in words, instead of graphic images. So it sounds like your goal had already been achieved.
 

BurnedOut

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 8:06 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
852
-->
Alright scorpiomover, you win, you damn sophist.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Over the years, older INTPs have learned more about the positive sides of emotions, and so are more open to the idea of thinking and feeling simultaneously. But the default reaction still remains to go cold and emotionless, as if ice feels warm to the touch.

Well stated.
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 9:36 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
249
-->
I’d have a lot to say, but you didn’t explain how your first statement relates to the next two statements and how it justifies your last statement.

Please address them as independent claims.
So you have no point then.

The claims appear to be self-evident.

If you have a specific criticism or objection or counter-factual, please present those objections one at a time.

Self-evident to you because you know what you mean by that; I however, can't read your mind.

I'm willing to talk about this, even though I have an intuition that you're going to play sophist or subjectivist and disregard all points made, but I do need a basic structured argument from you (and not disjointed statements) or I don't know what you're even on about...
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
Today 9:36 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
249
-->
You know what, just for the record, the reason why people can't agree on personality typing or act so skeptical is because everyone uses every function, people wear masks, yet when people are comfortable they default to natural instincts and tendencies when alone or in groups, which manifests their actual type. Whether such a thing is all that useful or not is up to you to decide.

So all this internet nonsense where everyone is arguing with each other about their type or the validity of MBTI or personality typing is pretty stupid, unless they have had a lot of experience with other people and themselves and spent time reflecting on that and taking away the most significant things from it.

Otherwise, it's just a bunch of obsessive introspection without very little outside experience and all the limited conclusions, definitions, and subjective understandings that come with that. Jung, MBTI, personality theories, are just frameworks, like mathematics, for helping make personality cogent; and like mathematics it simplifies the complex; and if you don't have the experience to know what it's simplifying, then you don't know what the personality types are to begin with. That is, you can't replace experience with mathematics; but you can frame experience with mathematics. It's exactly what we do with physics and no one complains about that. But take something like human cognition where personality takes growing to maturity and getting to know natural inclinations and tendencies and suddenly, it's all pseudoscience or some shit, as if we are all blank slates that have no predispositions, well that would be nice, but it's not reality. I really wish people had more of an open mind about things...
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
I'm willing to talk about this, even though I have an intuition that you're going to play sophist or subjectivist and disregard all points made, but I do need a basic structured argument from you (and not disjointed statements) or I don't know what you're even on about...

(IFF) OBJECTIVE = UNIVERSAL + IMMUTABLE + WHOLISTIC (AND) SUBJECTIVE = NOT UNIVERSAL + NOT IMMUTABLE + NOT WHOLISTIC (THEN) HUMAN UNDERSTANDING IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE (SAMPLE BIASED)
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 7:36 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,555
-->
Location
crib
(IFF) OBJECTIVE = UNIVERSAL + IMMUTABLE + WHOLISTIC (AND) SUBJECTIVE = NOT UNIVERSAL + NOT IMMUTABLE + NOT WHOLISTIC (THEN) HUMAN UNDERSTANDING IS FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE (SAMPLE BIASED)

The object is simply what is exterior to the subject. So where understanding is in the subject, there is a relation between subject and object. The isomorphism between object and subject is not one to one but it is close enough to function in the world. Universal agreement is not necessary because it is only on the periphery where disagreement exists. Any fundamental disagreement then is just as subjective as agreement. It is how one organizes objective references that the subjective makes into translated semantics. This is semiotics.
 

nephanth

Redshirt
Local time
Today 3:36 PM
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Messages
2
-->
Location
Gwendalavir
If you want my 2cent,

Im still "me".
Continuity of self reacts only :D

More seriously, I’m of the side that believe people can change. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe they can change for no reason, or easily, but people change based on their environment, and internal reflection. Can that make your mbti change? well i don’t see why not.


If you said those to an ISTP in a pub, you'd be nursing a broken nose right now. So those are ad-homs.
ok regardless of all the other points, I love that formulation


According to science, negative criticism is so harmful, that for one criticism, it takes 10 praises to remove its harmful effects.

You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE
wow that’s hell of a shortcut. If I were you, I’d rather have said
"You are giving negative criticism => either
- you are unaware of those harmful effect (citation needed btw)
- or, you consider what advantages making this criticism bring you more important than the harmful effects (that’s the point I’d rather go with pesonally)
- or causing harm was part of your goal altogether
- or you are just not acting rationally
- or you don’t believe in that particular result in which case we can conclude with another shortcut that you are <CAPSLOCK>anti-science</CAPSLOCK>
"

To go back on topic, there are plenty of problems with mbti, it’s simplistic, the dichotomies it gives are generally very blurry in most cases… but it can be useful as a first framework to try to understand someone… plus its practical to invent characters for writing :D
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Everything has some utility in it.
1630279561553.png


 

BurnedOut

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 8:06 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
852
-->

Before throwing up your hands in the air and gasping, 'Told ya', note how most of the MBTI categories measured are interrelated themselves. A person who respects the field of statistics and understands its usage in real life will chuck MBTI's questionnaire into the waste bin.

Such a turdy questionnaire MBTI has that it itself does not know what it is trying to measure when compared to the respectable FFM. Such appalling laziness at implementing even a cinch of statistical precision and prudence during formulating the questions despite being more than 80-90 years of its conception. If anything these correlations show, it is that MBTI is garbage. In real life, it is quite easy to measure many of traits enumerated by OCEAN by simply observing and furthermore establishing rapport.

If you have not understood what statistical standard I am referring to, it is this - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323316/
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 2:36 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,093
-->
Im still "me".
Continuity of self reacts only :D

More seriously, I’m of the side that believe people can change. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe they can change for no reason, or easily, but people change based on their environment, and internal reflection. Can that make your mbti change? well i don’t see why not.
Makes sense.

But your environment and internal reflections change daily. If your MBTI type can change from day to day, what's the point? It's like a woman who dyes her hair a different colour every day. What colour is her hair? Blonde? Brunette? Redhead? Blue? Green? Pink?

If you said those to an ISTP in a pub, you'd be nursing a broken nose right now. So those are ad-homs.
ok regardless of all the other points, I love that formulation
Thank you for the compliment.

According to science, negative criticism is so harmful, that for one criticism, it takes 10 praises to remove its harmful effects.

You are giving negative criticism => You are ANTI-SCIENCE
wow that’s hell of a shortcut. If I were you, I’d rather have said
"You are giving negative criticism => either
- you are unaware of those harmful effect (citation needed btw)
- or, you consider what advantages making this criticism bring you more important than the harmful effects (that’s the point I’d rather go with pesonally)
- or causing harm was part of your goal altogether
- or you are just not acting rationally
- or you don’t believe in that particular result in which case we can conclude with another shortcut that you are <CAPSLOCK>anti-science</CAPSLOCK>
"
I try to be easy-going on people who are easy-going.

To go back on topic, there are plenty of problems with mbti, it’s simplistic, the dichotomies it gives are generally very blurry in most cases… but it can be useful as a first framework to try to understand someone… plus its practical to invent characters for writing :D
Someone posted a great article about MBTI. I read it. Worth reading:

 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 8:36 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->

Before throwing up your hands in the air and gasping, 'Told ya', note how most of the MBTI categories measured are interrelated themselves. A person who respects the field of statistics and understands its usage in real life will chuck MBTI's questionnaire into the waste bin.

Such a turdy questionnaire MBTI has that it itself does not know what it is trying to measure when compared to the respectable FFM. Such appalling laziness at implementing even a cinch of statistical precision and prudence during formulating the questions despite being more than 80-90 years of its conception. If anything these correlations show, it is that MBTI is garbage. In real life, it is quite easy to measure many of traits enumerated by OCEAN by simply observing and furthermore establishing rapport.

If you have not understood what statistical standard I am referring to, it is this - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323316/

I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU.

I'M POINTING OUT THAT THE RESULTS OF BOTH TESTS ARE THE SAME.
 
Top Bottom