I actually agree with the article in that the current tests and the way it's handled by organizations is problematic. I don't think that invalidates the theory though.
Puh-leeze. It sounds like I'm not the one who needs to spend some more time actually reading Jung.Dude you can't measure Jung's functions. Not one, and that's where the discussion ends. It was never "scientific", nor did it claim itself to be. It's entirely descriptive and intuitive, as is most of psychology. The disasters of it appear exactly when it tries to be scientific about something too broad.
I respect the Big 5 because it doesn't overreach, so it's banal, works and can be measured.
But MBTI doesn't overreach either, because it's not a precise scientific tool to have a specific scope of domain it could overreach in the first place.
I personally believe MBTI did simplify Jung's work, but what it did stands as a direct product of Jung's theory and is thus "unscientific". Read Jung, he is not even trying to be scientific. In fact, he low key mocks all the intellectuals of his time for overemphasizing the 5 senses and the intellect.
Dichotomies vs. functions
this long INTJforum post,[/URL] the few attempts to test/validate the functions — and, in particular, the functions model most often discussed on internet forums (where INTJ = Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP = Ti-Ne-Si-Fe) — have not led to a respectable body of supporting results.
There is no empiricism there. Any psychological study given how statistically significant it is can barely be called science. Any hard scientist would smack you over the head with the paper if your presented what psychology calls "science" to them. On top of that MBTI is far less so than other parts of psychology, even personality theory where Big 5 far outranks it. And you cherry picking Jung quotes doesn't debunk my overall understanding of his books. I'll keep studying but you give me no reason to change my mind, other than pointing to authority of people I respect less than Jung (given stuff I know from them) and that I have not studied as thoroughly to asses anyway. Meh.Puh-leeze. It sounds like I'm not the one who needs to spend some more time actually reading Jung...
Faced with those facts, I really ...
Did you read the OP? Very much contrary to your claims, the MBTI can actually point to decades of studies that essentially put it on a par (psychometrically speaking) with the Big Five.There is no empiricism there. Any psychological study given how statistically significant it is can barely be called science. Any hard scientist would smack you over the head with the paper if your presented what psychology calls "science" to them. On top of that MBTI is far less so than other parts of psychology, even personality theory where Big 5 far outranks it.
I can quote "authority" too. But I won't. There is overwhelming articles, studies and piles of data that debunk "scientificness" of MBTI. If you cared to know, you would.Did you read the OP? Very much contrary to your claims, the MBTI can actually point to...
From sciencecouncil.orgScience is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Scientific methodology includes the following:
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?Why oh why must people always play the astrology card when discussing this matter. Astrology being a science thousands of years old. Somehow scientifically minded people conveniently ignore that Isaac Newton himself was an avid astrologer. Once, when his friend Edmund Halle was talking trash about astrology, he snapped something along the lines of, "I beg your pardon, I have studied the matter and you have not." So, for all of you who have not actually studied astrology, STFU.
Astrology totally satisfies these requirements:
:laughing: What studies? How would you even conduct that study?studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
then why are you saying it's scientific?:laughing: What studies? How would you even conduct that study?
These studies strike me as being highly superficial. Anyone who knows anything about astrology knows that a natal chart is a complicated web, with each factor (and there are hundreds) influencing every other factor. You can't take just the sun sign, or even the combination of the sun/ascendant/moon sign, and use the perceived lack of correlation with the personality as a means to debunk astrology as a whole.then why are you saying it's scientific?
also, like this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886905004046?via=ihub
What doesn't work? Is it not the case that if something has value, it works for that value? Want to go scientific on that?studies have shown astrology doesn't work, what other evidence and data exists that verifies it?
By all means take offense. (Fortunately there is no button for that as many would take it the wrong way.) When offense is taken, I get to see something I hadn't seen before. If you agree with me, it reinforces what I said but I learn nothing new.@BigApplePi I'm not sure if I should thank you or take offense at the comparison to fortune cookies! :laughing: This is how you keep me:
That's MY job! That's what I'm supposed to do to other people! You give me a taste of my own medicine, for sure.
Anyway....I think people would be extremely surprised at the amount of mathematical calculation that is involved in astrology. Just wanted to throw that in there.