[eso]

i think its possible to be over attached to a personality type. people are people and thats the bottom line. for this reason i think its kind of unhealthy to sum up your SELF with a few letters. i believe there is a lot of scientific information in mbti, but the main thing is that all the types are temorary personas that we all have a certain predisposition torwards.

i think its a little more apparent in entps because a lot of people who function as an entp most of the time will find themselves functioning as an intp fairly often.

then again to reiterate...to sum youself up as a type is kind of...."inhuman"

 

[nevermore]

well...that's no surprise...e and i is the smallest difference. i find myself as an entp quite often as well.

bottom line, we all have a type, but we also all have choices. you dont have to be what a run of the mill description says you are, and chances are youre not

every individual is the exception to the rule...thats what jung said...

 

[Monsteroids]

Eh... I gotta agree. Not to mention I find myself getting ISTP results more often, acting like an INFP (I fit a melancholic temperament) and finally going about the ENTP role a good few times. The thing is though, to sum yourself up like that is perfectly human.

This test is meant to encourage more self-reflection and observation into why you may do certain things. It's not made to wear as a badge. Common knowledge says some, but "people are people" and people have a tendency to vastly underestimate the grey stuff in their head and turn themselves, not just others, into cardboard cutouts. It's just part of human nature at times. Groupthink has prevailed in history spectacularly from a survivalist standpoint, so to find that people get a bit extreme, group-ish or over-generalize these MBTI types is neither surprising, nor insane. After all most people look for others who are similar to reflect on and relate to, I's and E's be damned.

Symbolic thought is so varied and infinite and yet turns up surprisingly restrictive at far too many times to deserve praise.

Sorry, rant tangent and probably not a response you were looking for. I got fixed onto yer statement of 'inhuman' and just lost it.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

i think its possible to be over attached to a personality type. people are people and thats the bottom line. for this reason i think its kind of unhealthy to sum up your SELF with a few letters. i believe there is a lot of scientific information in mbti, but the main thing is that all the types are temorary personas that we all have a certain predisposition torwards.

i think its a little more apparent in entps because a lot of people who function as an entp most of the time will find themselves functioning as an intp fairly often.

then again to reiterate...to sum youself up as a type is kind of...."inhuman"

Don't use it as a box, use it as a base. Of course it's incomplete.. but to say "ppl are unique!!" to curb the search for answers is equally insane.

 

[Olmed3011]

This test is meant to encourage more self-reflection and observation into why you may do certain things. It's not made to wear as a badge.

Thats sums it well up for me to. It could get pretty intense and rigid if you tried to turn yourself into a 4 letter description. Myers Briggs should not be used as a tool to narrow yourself but rather to broaden the perspective.

I think your personality and type in most instances shines through. And I think most people would recognize patterns in themselves that are more prevalent than other sides they have. So in that case Myers Briggs has some logic in it because it could possible help to create more awareness about how you are seen by others.

 

[eso]

Don't use it as a box, use it as a base. Of course it's incomplete.. but to say "ppl are unique!!" to curb the search for answers is equally insane.

has ten letters...
beautiful

 

[eso]

Thats sums it well up for me to. It could get pretty intense and rigid if you tried to turn yourself into a 4 letter description. Myers Briggs should not be used as a tool to narrow yourself but rather to broaden the perspective.

I think your personality and type in most instances shines through. And I think most people would recognize patterns in themselves that are more prevalent than other sides they have. So in that case Myers Briggs has some logic in it because it could possible help to create more awareness about how you are seen by others.

yea it could be used to identify the old and find the new

 

[eso]

Eh... I gotta agree. Not to mention I find myself getting ISTP results more often, acting like an INFP (I fit a melancholic temperament) and finally going about the ENTP role a good few times. The thing is though, to sum yourself up like that is perfectly human.

This test is meant to encourage more self-reflection and observation into why you may do certain things. It's not made to wear as a badge. Common knowledge says some, but "people are people" and people have a tendency to vastly underestimate the grey stuff in their head and turn themselves, not just others, into cardboard cutouts. It's just part of human nature at times. Groupthink has prevailed in history spectacularly from a survivalist standpoint, so to find that people get a bit extreme, group-ish or over-generalize these MBTI types is neither surprising, nor insane. After all most people look for others who are similar to reflect on and relate to, I's and E's be damned.

Symbolic thought is so varied and infinite and yet turns up surprisingly restrictive at far too many times to deserve praise.

Sorry, rant tangent and probably not a response you were looking for. I got fixed onto yer statement of 'inhuman' and just lost it.

well every person is a melting pot. i guess theres things which are natural and things which exist as ego or pure principal...and i think that mbti is an excellent ego identification

 

[WildWinds]

There is no scientific information in personality theory unless you can link it to neurology.

But that aside, I would agree and would echo what Apollo said. Use it as a base, not a box. You have your type and your cognitive function preferences, but you aren't limited to your results.

 

[SomeRandomGuy18]

There is no scientific information in personality theory unless you can link it to neurology.

But that aside, I would agree and would echo what Apollo said. Use it as a base, not a box. You have your type and your cognitive function preferences, but you aren't limited to your results.

there is definitely scientific information in MBTI. check out this video #8 Neurology Marries Psychology

 

[agokcen]

i believe there is a lot of scientific information in mbti....

Whoa, there. I've just got to point out that MBTI is pretty much 100% nonscientific. That doesn't mean it has no credibility in terms of applicability, but to call it a science or even to say that it incorporates science in any sense of the word is a big stretch.

 

[SomeRandomGuy18]

Whoa, there. I've just got to point out that MBTI is pretty much 100% nonscientific. That doesn't mean it has no credibility in terms of applicability, but to call it a science or even to say that it incorporates science in any sense of the word is a big stretch.

I know it wasn't based on science, but see the video I posted earlier. It seems to have a lot of real evidence going for it.

 

[st0831]

Projecting four letter system each with letter degree of freedom of two, 2^4 = 16 types seems nonsense when compared to 6 billion people of the world.

In other words, MBTI is not sufficient in describing 6 billion people of this world.

 

[Ray Mabry]

First off before I respond I must say that people shouldn't focus on the letters they don't matter. It's the cognitive functions and their positions that matter. Unless you actually study the functions and their positioning and how they relate to one another the whole thing is useless.

Jungs studies basically relates to how you gather and judge information externally and internally and behaviors typically follow a pattern based off of that. But they're are other variables and factors that can't really be examined such as personal values. I see alot of consistency in the cognitive functions but it's very complex and more study needs to be done on the whole thing.

Everyone is unique in that they are drawn to different things and experiences and are in different environments and have different upbringings but I think that the functions still can play an important role. I observe my two ISTJ friends and I notice striking similarities when I start to notice how they think and what they focus on. They even share the same inability to deal with sudden change. But the two are like night and day in some instances.

i'll also add that the MBTI test itself is kind of flawed for example asking if someone has lots of friends or likes to be alone does not relate to E or I and there are other mistakes that Myers and Briggs made earlier on as well. They're needs to be a new test as well as new studies.

Understanding the cognitive functions and type dynamics is important. But the test doesn't necessarily box anyone in.

We are "unique" but remember that we are the same probably in more ways than we are unique. We all breathe the same thing, have the same body parts, communicate in the same ways, have the same basic needs etc, etc...