Would you say types are... clingy?

[oldfashionedgirl]

This is I guess my first thread... so hi everyone.

Okay, this is a kind of depressing first thread I guess, but:
I got into MBTI last year, and I loved that it allowed me to understand why I am who I am. Between MBTI and Enegram [sp?], I felt like I'd found myself, I guess.
Recently in my MBTI researches though, I've been finding these articles "proving" why MBTI is a lie. In the end they all say the same thing: the reason MBTI is popular is because people cling to these ideal versions of themselves that are really nothing like them and just... believe it it because the test said so. And because they have a fake "ah ha" moment.
One of the articles like that is this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-grant/goodbye-to-mbti-the-fad-t_b_3947014.html

So do you think all the people on all the forums out there about MBTI like personality cafe or the specific forums like this one or The Refuge [for INTPs] are just talking about something that doesn't exist and never has?

I still think MBTI is accurate, and I still don't think I'm clinging to a lie because I wish that was how I really am (I hope not anyway).
But what does anybody else think?
[also sorry if this thread already exists...]

 

[Base groove]

According to Wikipedia, the contemporary psychological community disputes the existence of any of the historically proposed "cognitive functions".

Regarding the article you linked, it's quite biased and reflects a lack of any deep theoretical understanding. I didn't see any mention of Jungian types in the article which tells me it was a critical assessment of the MBTI system only, not what it actually represents.

The MBTI just organizes Jungian types in a meaningful way so to claim that it (the test) is not reliable or valid isn't all that useful because the test is already regarded in the MBTI community as being invalid and unreliable, however the MBTI itself still holds esteem.

 

[Pyropyro]

Hmm...

I wonder why the authors of the article in "growing support" is the same ones in the "new and improved" personality system.

Does this smell like (a rather poorly disguised) press release to you?

 

[doncarlzone]

The reason MBTI is popular is because people cling to these ideal versions of themselves that are really nothing like them and just... believe it it because the test said so. And because they have a fake "ah ha" moment.

I think there is some truth to that. For social animals it naturally only makes sense that there are genetically different personalities. Extroversion vs Introversion has already been researched and is a pretty well established personality trait, however, whether all of the other traits and Jungian functions are spot on is probably doubtful. Not to mention that even his views on E/I may differ from contemporary research.

I was not impressed by the article reference though.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

I don't think the ah-ha moment is fake.

 

[oldfashionedgirl]

I also was not really impressed by the article.
Now that you mention it, it may very well seem like a sort of press release. Yeah, some other one I read [and I can't find it now] where their main reason for arguing was the fact that "MBTI was invented by two housewives based off of the theories of Carl Jung and not only did they have no scientific education, but any personality measuring device which is made entirely from one source of information is obviously flawed."

I was dying to ask them what they meant by that. I don't think lack of college makes you less able to come up with well working devices such as MBTI, and I definitely don't see anything "obvious" about the statement that they won't explain.

And yes, I agree that the tests themselves are flawed, and the tests for Socionics are actually well made. When I can take them five-seven times and still be unable to learn how to manipulate the tests like I can so easily with MBTI. I think the tests need to be much more innovative.

You know, I read that a second ago and saw what the writer said was "a much better way to organize ourselves in typology" and is wasn't that big five thing, it was something else. I was just thinking "Okay, that's a new one" ans was going to Google it except now I can't find it.

 

[Base groove]

If you wanted to know somebody's type how would you go about discovering it?

 

[redbaron]

Huffingtonpost

 

[oldfashionedgirl]

If you wanted to know somebody's type how would you go about discovering it?

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Base groove]

What exactly do you mean by that?

nevermind then.

 

[oldfashionedgirl]

nevermind then.

Aww don't give up on me- I'll spend the whole night wondering what I missed.
Do you mean, how do I figure out someone's type as in what method do I use to guess their functions,
Or do you mean what typing system would I use?
The first is complicated...

But as for typing, MBTI seems to be simplest for typing people who are not you, so I always do that first.
[did I just complicate that?]

 

[Base groove]

Aww don't give up on me- I'll spend the whole night wondering what I missed.
Do you mean, how do I figure out someone's type as in what method do I use to guess their functions,
Or do you mean what typing system would I use?
The first is complicated...

But as for typing, MBTI seems to be simplest for typing people who are not you, so I always do that first.
[did I just complicate that?]

No, you did not just complicate it.

Yes, I mean any and all of the above. The primary approach, the secondary approach, the verification string...

 

[QuickTwist]

I know one thing you can't do with theories, and that is just say "but you don't know enough yet. Wait until you fully understand and then you will see that it is true." *shudders* I hate that argument about anything. If something is accurate it should be something that right away you can say to yourself "I suppose that could work." If someone were to come out and say "2+2 is always 5," and then they stat giving this elaborate explanation on why it is true, you have to just roll your eyes at them and say "Sorry, I'm not interested."

[Edit] Of course this means that I am skeptical on A LOT of things and I also keep my mind open to possibilities.

 

[Base groove]

I know one thing you can't do with theories, and that is just say "but you don't know enough yet. Wait until you fully understand and then you will see that it is true." *shudders* I hate that argument about anything. If something is accurate it should be something that right away you can say to yourself "I suppose that could work." If someone were to come out and say "2+2 is always 5," and then they stat giving this elaborate explanation on why it is true, you have to just roll your eyes at them and say "Sorry, I'm not interested."

[Edit] Of course this means that I am skeptical on A LOT of things and I also keep my mind open to possibilities.

I don't think this is a very good method.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

People need to know who they are.

 

[oldfashionedgirl]

No, you did not just complicate it.

Yes, I mean any and all of the above. The primary approach, the secondary approach, the verification string...

I don't have a great track record for typing, but two of four I have gotten right. Others I don't know as I've never proved it.
I usually try to figure out N or S first because I find it easiest. I just try to figure out how open minded they are, how visual they are, if they follow me when I go on abstract tangents or immediately take the convo back to what Susie wore at the party. I use that for N/S.
Then I try F/T. An obvious was would be to bring up feelings and see if they avoid it or not, but I myself shudder at the idea so I just... try to observe the person around those I believe to be Fs and see how they react to F-type emotional related chatter, which seems to inevitably come up, [esp. around my mother]. It actually hasn't failed on the T either time I was right. Even when I was wrong I got the T right, just not the the other letters lol.
E/I is next because I find that hard for many people. I feel very... nervous? Wrong? something like that, asking about things like whether they tend towards needing alone time or like being around people, so I try to be very perceptive when I'm out somewhere with them and see if they get "people tired" about the same time I do or would normally [if there's one thing I am sure of it's that I am an I]. Since that's not always possible, I got this wrong on people I'm not around a lot.
I do J/P last, because... I hate that one. My Grandpa, for example, is the most disorganized person I know and literally never gets anything done, probably because he spends ALL his time looking for tools and stuff he lost. I thought he was a P... but he was a J. With 1% J, but still a J. I try to figure out how open minded and how "traditional" they are or how willing they are to go with the latest hair brained idea, how open they are to suggestion. It often fails though.

Is that what you meant then?

Also sorry for any typos in words with apostrophes. The ' key on my laptop here is sticking today and it's not going when I hit it. -_-

 

[Base groove]

Yes you provided all the information I was after.

By deferring to the test score against your better judgment (in the case of your grandpa).

 

[oldfashionedgirl]

Yes you provided all the information I was after.

By deferring to the test score against your better judgment (in the case of your grandpa).

Well I'm glad!
So... what exactly are you... saying about deferring test scores?
[sorry, I must be incredibly dense today].

 

[Base groove]

Well I'm glad!
So... what exactly are you... saying about deferring test scores?
[sorry, I must be incredibly dense today].

I'm saying they don't mean much when you try to measure them up against the knowledge that comes with interpersonal relationships.

If you were so convinced your granddad was a P type then why does it matter if the test scored him differently??

Why do you think that a 1% preference is conclusive?

 

[QuickTwist]

I don't think this is a very good method.

Yes I forgot... thanks for pointing that out...

Just ignore me.