Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was confronted with the notion that everything we LOVE and post about (MBTI) is considered a pseudoscience.

Being an ENFP, I could care less. Just because something doesn't have legit scientific backing or mathematical calculations to prove its existence doesn't mean that it isn't truthful whatsoever.

I respect Jung for starting this "pseudoscientific" revolution. He took the time to figure out what makes people click on a non-chemical level. He saw how are on a human level and turned it into a science. Yes, a science.

I hate HATE HATE it when people dismiss myers briggs as just being mere pseudoscience. There is so much more to it than that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
MBTI's a bit like Freudian psychology in the sense that it was helpful at the time they were created, but they've been more-or-less discredited since then. There are much more reliable inventories out there in modern times, but without the initial MBTI study, these may not have been created.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
He took the time to figure out what makes people click on a non-chemical level.
Indeed! "Click" is the perfect way to put it! I think most people are aware of "clicking" with other people for reasons they couldn't rationalize (the reasons that go beyond wanting to be around someone just because of their interests or whatever). It's like an automatic draw, where you just "get" the person - something about the way they think or behave just resonates with you. I've observed this based on most of the friends I've had since elementary school - most of the people I've clicked the best with were probably not the result of any coincidence, and Jung was aware of this in designing his theories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,800 Posts
Indeed! "Click" is the perfect way to put it! I think most people are aware of "clicking" with other people for reasons they couldn't rationalize (the reasons that go beyond wanting to be around someone just because of their interests or whatever). It's like an automatic draw, where you just "get" the person - something about the way they think or behave just resonates with you. I've observed this based on most of the friends I've had since elementary school - most of the people I've clicked the best with were probably not the result of any coincidence, and Jung was aware of this in designing his theories.
I totally get this. It comes instantly and you don't know why, i usually don't even question it because somewhere downt he road, i get my answers. When observing people, whether that be here, or there, sometimes something about them doesn't resonate with me personally. I don't click and have a really strong hunch i don't want them in my company. I get really bad vibes. It's the only way i can explain having this stong feeling of " get away from me, there is something bad/off about you ". It usually shows up later as " fake, insincere, phony etc, so my first gut reaction is usually the right one.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
I totally get this. It comes instantly and you don't know why, i usually don't even question it because somewhere downt he road, i get my answers. When observing people, whether that be here, or there, sometimes something about them doesn't resonate with me personally. I don't click and have a really strong hunch i don't want them in my company. I get really bad vibes. It's the only way i can explain having this stong feeling of " get away from me, there is something bad/off about you ". It usually shows up later as " fake, insincere, phony etc, so my first gut reaction is usually the right one.:)
Interesting! Do you think this relates to high Fi somewhat - it sounds like it from what I've read about Fi. My experiences with this are a little more of a vague gut-feeling, I think, which might have to do with me being a lower Fi user - sort of an Ni-Fi loop paranoia thing where I start "seeing" things about the person in a hypothetical sense (e.g. like, I'll think "I bet that this is what this person is like - something about their motivations annoys me). I think for me, clicking with people can be more of a surprising, out-of-the-blue experience, since figuring out what I like isn't very conscious for me, since my Fi is lower (it just kind of happens often). How easy for you is it to figure out what you click with and what you don't?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Joseph Stephen Biehl, a hardly known philosopher once wrote: The ‘norm of truth’ is often elaborated in terms of the desirability, or utility of true belief, presumably for the purposes of action. Yet the problem with putting matters this way isn’t hard to see: different believers might well view the ‘value’ of true beliefs differently. Utility, for instance, is a matter of relevant purpose and for some purposes—perhaps many—so-called ‘false’ beliefs might do the job as well, if not better, than true ones.

W.I. Thomas, a very famous sociologist got famous for saying: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

I think the MBTI is like that - it may be pseudo-science, I honestly have no idea - many people believe that it is an interesting prism through which they can view themselves and others in a way that makes sense to all. I use the MBTI a lot in my work because it helps people to understand that there are different viewpoints and different ways people deal with the world. So pseudo-science, yes maybe but a tool that makes sense to a whole lot of people and thus an instrument you can really work with: definitely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,800 Posts
Interesting! Do you think this relates to high Fi somewhat - it sounds like it from what I've read about Fi. My experiences with this are a little more of a vague gut-feeling, I think, which might have to do with me being a lower Fi user - sort of an Ni-Fi loop paranoia thing where I start "seeing" things about the person in a hypothetical sense (e.g. like, I'll think "I bet that this is what this person is like - something about their motivations annoys me). I think for me, clicking with people can be more of a surprising, out-of-the-blue experience, since figuring out what I like isn't very conscious for me, since my Fi is lower (it just kind of happens often). How easy for you is it to figure out what you click with and what you don't?
You know i think i unconsciously obseve people very intensly. Sometimes i noticed things instantly, it could be small suble things. I use my Ne first to observe and take notice of any patterns i see that won't mesh with who i am. It maybe things like how they communicate with other people, what they're interested in and and so on. For me , how they interact is probably the first thing i notice. Then i observe their habits, whether that be consistantly speaking in a negative way, if they think its necesary to swearing, if they interrupt and don't listen to others. So many things that can happen in such a short period of time. Then my Fi will make a judgement, and if i have my mind made up it isn't easy to change that. I already know i won't connect well with this person, because my values and things i deem important wont' fit with how i just observed them. I suppose it feels like an instant turn-off. This process may sound like it would take time, although i have been known to make snap decisions about a person within minutes. Other times i watch them from a distance without them knowing. I follow the yellow brick road and find all sorts of patterns of off behavior. This could include manipulation or sly intentions on their behalf, yet unless you actually follow this road or pattern, it won't be visible to just anyone who isn't watching. These are people i may have interacted with at some point, althought the more i follow the off behavior, the more i learn . Then i will take steps in ridding of them as i know the toxic blood that runs through their veins .

Yes, it could be Fi coming to a judgement, probably faster than you as i use it AUX. My INTJ husband doesn't come to final decisions near as quick in terms of people, then again he would admit he doesn't really pay attention to the things i do ; D...its almost llike i get fixated ( that may not be a word ) on an object intensely and connect all the patterns with their behaviors, even really small ones that some people may not even pick up or notice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
MBTI's a bit like Freudian psychology in the sense that it was helpful at the time they were created, but they've been more-or-less discredited since then. There are much more reliable inventories out there in modern times, but without the initial MBTI study, these may not have been created.
There is a gap between the test and the theory. The test has some reliability and validity but it doesn't validate the theory. I still think a jungian test could outperform the Big Five if it had a better underlying theory. Like something based in biology, something in the tradition of Eysenck, and with a test measuring biological correlates rather than the old questionnaire routine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
@Staffan

The MBTI tests are no more accurate in measuring anything than the actual theory is. The theories actually have clear, navigable principles behind them (albeit complex), while basically everything associated with the MBTI is mindless - you're better off just taking MBTI at 100% face value than interpreting it, because it fails at oversimplifying Jung's original principles, while it also fails at retaining any sense of theoretical principle at all, since it mixes up concepts that already exist IRL (e.g. it blatantly steals from the Openess dimension of the Big 5 to create J/P - N/S are a mess I'm not even getting into right now, I/E are poorly understood via bad questions on the tests, etc.). Measuring biological correlates is idealism at it's finest - that has nothing to do with whether the theory is acceptable or not (that's about as silly as presuming that gravity isn't real because you can't see the principles behind gravity - the indirect results of the principle are there, however, which is essentially the case with the types). So, you're arguing for biological correlates, but earlier, think that the test can validate the theory? How does that even work? What's more viable to you - biological correlates, or a test? Why do they go hand-in-hand? I can't follow your reasoning at all. Essentially, you just don't believe that observing personality differences is possible - that's what it boils down to. Honestly, I don't think that the MBTI tests are even necessary to figure out type - sure, they can be a quicker and simpler way of getting you through introspection to find the answer, while also, prevent a person from being particularly knowledgeable about the concepts behind the test to get an answer, but in the end, anyone can do this without a test, if they care enough to and have enough time to for whatever purpose they have in mind. That's my beef with tests like the Big 5 also - it's all parroting at it's finest - so a test told you who you are - then, it's just up to you to agree or disagree, but if you don't know the principles you're being tested on, then what's the point of it all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
This reminds me of something I always think about Big 5. (I really don't know much about it) It just seems like "We describe people through adjectives, so let's take all adjectives and discard the redundant and useless ones. There, now to describe someone you just have to use these correct adjectives. Completely pointless.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
613 Posts
MBTI Pseudoscience?

Trust the Ne people to think outside the box.

Most of these tests are multiple choice, so they produce extreme results, A OR B, black OR white. In realty I think most people hover around the average 50%. I doubt anyone is close to 100% of anything as some people’s results indicate.

For example, one test shows me:
Thinking (T) 51.43% Feeling (F) 48.57%

Would that make me borderline ENFP?

http://personalitycafe.com/entp-for...u-prefer-who-you-attracted-3.html#post2232088
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Well for starters one has to separate MBTI from Jung. They are not really the same thing. For me, because MBTI has so many issues, namely not even being self-coherent, I would have a hard time putting it on the same level as neuroscience. That being said, psychology is, itself, a pseudo-science. If you're going to be super-Te/Se about this, as a lot of science-types are, then the idea of psyche at all (since it isn't provable or falsifiable) is pseudo-science.

You have to understand what Jung (and his contemporary's) motivations were. Jung was miffed at the direction that modern science took. He saw it as taking the 'psyche' out of psychology. That it became obsessed with empiricism and labelling, and not nearly as interested in what it was observing or labelling. Modern psychology in the scientific sense is all about labels. Primarily labelling pathologies, but doesn't really seek to understand the root causes of those pathologies (or what to do about them) from more than an empirical, biological level. It's a super Thinking/Sensation approach, that basically says anything that cannot be observed doesn't exist (this includes things like religion).

So you have two basic schools of thoughts here. One is Modern Science, which seeks to work with can only be observed, tested and proven (based on our current level of understanding). Jung, though he was hardly anti-science, saw this is as slightly arrogant, simply because we don't know everything, and all truths start out as theory at some point. The other way is to treat the esoteric as real and not be dismissive of it, which is the approach of Jungian psychology. Jung sought to make things like dream material and religions, and psychological states more than simply biological dispositions. Because the thing that science forgets, is: so what if its biology? What now? So what if religion is just some made up chemical construct or what have you? No one cares. Literally nobody cares. There's this idea that if you educate people on a subject they will be more 'enlightened' out of their 'archaic' ways, but Jung saw the archaic ways as being more true to the human experience.

For example, people often wonder esoteric questions like "Why do bad things happen to good people?" There is nothing in science that has an answer for this question, so we are forced to turn to things like philosophy and religion to fill that void. "Everyone else's baby was born fine, my baby was a stillborn, why me?" Simply saying "well that's just the way evolution works," is not the answer people want to her. Something innate in humans gives us a desire for understanding things beyond their labels. If I go to a psychiatrist and they diagnose me with Schizoid Personality or Avoidant Personality Disorder, these are just identifications. It doesn't tell me why I have this, or what I can do about it (beyond "here's some medicine") it's just a label. In that way you might as well have told me an I'm an INFP or whatever (at least there you have a framework to work from, a way of looking at yourself and a place to draw improvements from). The diagnosis doesn't talk about how my dad might've abused me as a child, or how the conditions of my upbringing have influenced my disposition. It says nothing for why people are greedy, or why I have vehement disagreements about tactics, faith and politics with the person next to me. In a way, as Jung pointed out, modern science, for all its achievements is no better than the Ancient Greeks and Hippocrates were when he said "well the Phlegmatic person has too much Phlegm and the Sanguine has too much blood." We've just replaced too much phlegm with "chemical imbalance."

If you tried to explain the scientific reasons for why things like religion exists, as many have tried to do (and might be right for all we know) does it do away with religious beliefs? Of course not. All the science in the world isn't going to stop people from wondering if there's an afterlife. Or what their dreams mean. Or if their life has any purpose. So Jung took the opposite approach of trying to establish a scientific methodology that took these more 'human' equations into the picture to create a fuller picture. Not to throw out science altogether, but to augment it with the aspects of human existence that science was unwilling (and maybe unable) to deal with. Thus you have ideas like personas (that people wear masks and have different ways of approaching the world based on their experience, something unprovable), or repression (that people repress aspects of their experience that they find undesirable (not provable), or the four functions (unprovable), or the symbology of the unconscious and its archetypes (that there are innate patterns that seem to be endemic to human experience, unprovable), and so on and so forth. So it's just a matter of picking your perspective.

Marie-Louise Von Franz in Psychotherapy eloquently writes
My attitude toward this model is that the idea of the four functions is an archetypal model for looking at things and that it has the advantages - and disadvantages - of all scientific models. Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist, once said something which seems to me very convincing, namely that no new theory, or new fruitful invention in the field of science, has ever been put forth without the working of an archetypal idea. For instance, the ideas of three-dimensional or four-dimensional space are based on an archetypal representation, such as has always worked, to a certain degree, in a very productive way and has helped to explain many phenomena. But then comes what Pauli calls the self-limitation of that archetypal hypothesis, namely that if one overexpands the idea to phenomena where it does not apply, then that same fruitful idea becomes an inhibition for further scientific progress.

I think that this theory of the four functions has a kind of practical value but it is not dogma, which would make it completely rigid. That is why Jung very clearly puts it forward as a heuristical standpoint - a fruitful hypothesis by which you can find out things, but not something which you can in any way pin down as absolute dogma. But we know now that in all scientific investigations we cannot do more than put forward thinking models and see how far the facts fit, and if the facts do not coincide, then we have to correct the models. Sometimes we do not have to revise the whole thinking model, but must say that it only applies in a certain area and that as soon as you switch over to another area of facts it becomes a distortion. I personally am convinced, especially with this new confirmation from the Wilkinson principles, that we have not yet exhausted the fruitfulness of the model , but that does not mean there are not facts that do not fit into it and which would force us to revise it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Well for starters one has to separate MBTI from Jung. They are not really the same thing. For me, because MBTI has so many issues, namely not even being self-coherent, I would have a hard time putting it on the same level as neuroscience. That being said, psychology is, itself, a pseudo-science. If you're going to be super-Te/Se about this, as a lot of science-types are, then the idea of psyche at all (since it isn't provable or falsifiable) is pseudo-science.

You have to understand what Jung (and his contemporary's) motivations were. Jung was miffed at the direction that modern science took. He saw it as taking the 'psyche' out of psychology. That it became obsessed with empiricism and labelling, and not nearly as interested in what it was observing or labelling. Modern psychology in the scientific sense is all about labels. Primarily labelling pathologies, but doesn't really seek to understand the root causes of those pathologies (or what to do about them) from more than an empirical, biological level. It's a super Thinking/Sensation approach, that basically says anything that cannot be observed doesn't exist (this includes things like religion).

So you have two basic schools of thoughts here. One is Modern Science, which seeks to work with can only be observed, tested and proven (based on our current level of understanding). Jung, though he was hardly anti-science, saw this is as slightly arrogant, simply because we don't know everything, and all truths start out as theory at some point. The other way is to treat the esoteric as real and not be dismissive of it, which is the approach of Jungian psychology. Jung sought to make things like dream material and religions, and psychological states more than simply biological dispositions. Because the thing that science forgets, is: so what if its biology? What now? So what if religion is just some made up chemical construct or what have you? No one cares. Literally nobody cares. There's this idea that if you educate people on a subject they will be more 'enlightened' out of their 'archaic' ways, but Jung saw the archaic ways as being more true to the human experience.

For example, people often wonder esoteric questions like "Why do bad things happen to good people?" There is nothing in science that has an answer for this question, so we are forced to turn to things like philosophy and religion to fill that void. "Everyone else's baby was born fine, my baby was a stillborn, why me?" Simply saying "well that's just the way evolution works," is not the answer people want to her. Something innate in humans gives us a desire for understanding things beyond their labels. If I go to a psychiatrist and they diagnose me with Schizoid Personality or Avoidant Personality Disorder, these are just identifications. It doesn't tell me why I have this, or what I can do about it (beyond "here's some medicine") it's just a label. In that way you might as well have told me an I'm an INFP or whatever (at least there you have a framework to work from, a way of looking at yourself and a place to draw improvements from). The diagnosis doesn't talk about how my dad might've abused me as a child, or how the conditions of my upbringing have influenced my disposition. It says nothing for why people are greedy, or why I have vehement disagreements about tactics, faith and politics with the person next to me. In a way, as Jung pointed out, modern science, for all its achievements is no better than the Ancient Greeks and Hippocrates were when he said "well the Phlegmatic person has too much Phlegm and the Sanguine has too much blood." We've just replaced too much phlegm with "chemical imbalance."

If you tried to explain the scientific reasons for why things like religion exists, as many have tried to do (and might be right for all we know) does it do away with religious beliefs? Of course not. All the science in the world isn't going to stop people from wondering if there's an afterlife. Or what their dreams mean. Or if their life has any purpose. So Jung took the opposite approach of trying to establish a scientific methodology that took these more 'human' equations into the picture to create a fuller picture. Not to throw out science altogether, but to augment it with the aspects of human existence that science was unwilling (and maybe unable) to deal with. Thus you have ideas like personas (that people wear masks and have different ways of approaching the world based on their experience, something unprovable), or repression (that people repress aspects of their experience that they find undesirable (not provable), or the four functions (unprovable), or the symbology of the unconscious and its archetypes (that there are innate patterns that seem to be endemic to human experience, unprovable), and so on and so forth. So it's just a matter of picking your perspective.

Marie-Louise Von Franz in Psychotherapy eloquently writes
It all depends on what you want to get out of it I suppose. For me, the big thing about typology is that it is the part of Jung that has the potential of becoming real science. That would probably mean you'd have to take all the stuff about archetypes and such out of the equation. For someone more philosophically minded that would be killing it. But historically that's how science has been growing out of philosophy, how astrology gave birth to astronomy, how alchemy was seminal to chemistry and medicine and so forth. This split has already taken place in the Jungian realm too, where people like Lenore Thomson for instance is in the philosophical realm and someone like Cloninger is more in the science realm. (The latter would hardly even refer to himself as a Jungian.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
WTF is real science? It's only what people believe has the potential of being real via logic and experimentation (that's pretty naive to think that it only has to be directly visible to be real enough to accept). Science is just used to prove ideas, etc. It doesn't inherently exist as evident reality on it's own - otherwise, how can it prove itself? I dunno, a lot of Jung's concepts can definitely be inferred from observations in the real world once a person grasps the patterns (e.g. introverts and extroverts).
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top