I'd also suggest you google Reynierse's revision of MBTI. I find it far better, and even more Jung-friendly.
With all due respect, you really have no idea what you're talking about.Conclusion: MBTI is like a little kid drawing a bunny on daddy's tax return.
It's not that I disapprove citing your own posts, it is something I have considered doing myself for extra credibility and all that jazz. But I always wonder what's up with referring to yourself in the third person. Is it to deny even the possibility of subjectivity in your statements?Since you apparently don't like to follow links, I've put a bit of recycled reckful for you in the spoiler.
In essence, Myers "discovered" that S and J have the same effects on a person as Jung thought was a tendency of introversion. What is it about sensation and judgement that make it so i.e. the cause, and how did Myers exactly come up with that. And why accept the more complicated (yet lacking in insightfulness and explanations) set of dichtomies instead of the simpler explanation revolving around attitudes which nevertheless has both depth and potential for applications when treating people? I do not see why the former would be preferable simply because it can be "tested" while pretending that personality traits could be measured and tested reliably in the first place. I recall asking you some time ago (unfortunately without receiving an answer) as to why art schools aren't full of sensory kids who make use of their intuitions - just as well, since your claim was that he opposite was obviously true. I cannot help but find this kind of theorizing lacking, and at the risk of repeating myself, with a test that associates "creativity" with intution it can hardly be surprising that a lot of people studying to become creative professionals end up with the "intuitive" label. However using this as evidence is just dishonest as it only confirms a mistake that took place earlier in the process aka. assigning a vague trait of "creativity" with the even more vague concept of intuition.Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.
If I understand you correctly:I hate the idea of intuition having to do with openness, there's so much flaws in that line of reasoning.
Wut?If I understand you correctly:
The thing about openness is to be aware of what is flawed, and it is basically up to you if you care about flaws or not. The leap of faith into the unknown might take courage for some. Exploring unknown realities can get you mad, I know that myself.
Most of the times it's pretty sweet living in a reality without flaws. But a reality without flaws doesn't exist...
uuhmm ok nvm XDWut?
1. It assumes that thinking more abstractly would necessitate you being more open to experience and ideas.uuhmm ok nvm XD
Why do you hate the idea of intuition having to do with openness? Why are there so many flaws in that line of reasoning?
The reality we live in is abstract, because without our mind that imagines the abstract we wouldn't even see what we perceive reality as.1. It assumes that thinking more abstractly would necessitate you being more open to experience and ideas.
2. It assumes if you think in a more concrete manner you'll be more conventional in your behavior and opinions on things, and vice-versa.
3. It assumes that if you're more traditional that you lack creativity. One is behavioral, openness just seems to be more about interests. The two aren't at odds with one-another, not a contradiction so I don't see why they're on a continuum.
4. It doesn't take the way you process information into consideration it seems, only the end result. I.e Being more liberal therefore means being more abstract.
5. Se is an S function, but going by how Big 5 describes openness an S would score higher on it than not. When openness is supposed to describe intuition.
Referring to myself as "reckful" is a stylistic tic that I adopted early in my forum-posting career (at INTJforum in 2009), largely for the amusement of my fellow forumites.It's not that I disapprove citing your own posts, it is something I have considered doing myself for extra credibility and all that jazz. But I always wonder what's up with referring to yourself in the third person. Is it to deny even the possibility of subjectivity in your statements?
That's incorrect.In essence, Myers "discovered" that S and J have the same effects on a person as Jung thought was a tendency of introversion. What is it about sensation and judgement that make it so i.e. the cause, and how did Myers exactly come up with that.
The reason the MBTI dichotomies pass muster in the psychometric department — and indeed, have been found to be essentially "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests (more here) — is that the various aspects of personality included in each dimension have decades of data in support of the fact that they have a tendency to cluster together.I recall asking you some time ago (unfortunately without receiving an answer) as to why art schools aren't full of sensory kids who make use of their intuitions - just as well, since your claim was that he opposite was obviously true. I cannot help but find this kind of theorizing lacking, and at the risk of repeating myself, with a test that associates "creativity" with intution it can hardly be surprising that a lot of people studying to become creative professionals end up with the "intuitive" label. However using this as evidence is just dishonest as it only confirms a mistake that took place earlier in the process aka. assigning a vague trait of "creativity" with the even more vague concept of intuition.
In theory you could say that Ne is more about openness than Ni. Ni tends to 'get stuck' in tunnel vision a lot.I hate the idea of intuition having to do with openness, there's so much flaws in that line of reasoning.