It's lonely at the top...of the MBTI
No, because science!!
Any INTPs hate the defense "MBTI isnt established science," to knock someone who believes something about it?
Do they not realize science once said the earth was flat?
That science once said whites are genetically superior to other races?
That science can be wrong and unestablished systems like MBTI can be accurate?
Does the faith people have in science annoy anyone else?
I wish people would see authority in themselves and not need it from outside sources.
Do they not realize science once said the earth was flat?
That science once said whites are genetically superior to other races?
That science can be wrong and unestablished systems like MBTI can be accurate?
Does the faith people have in science annoy anyone else?
I wish people would see authority in themselves and not need it from outside sources.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Well if evidence goes against it...............................................................................................but if there was no evidence tested it would not matter.
An is not falsifiable at least the Jung part, so it is not science.
An is not falsifiable at least the Jung part, so it is not science.
Actually those examples were made be prejudice and unfounded beliefs not truly based on science but on senses and feelings connected to those senses, which takes longer to disprove established, but wrong theories. Before Galileo / Sir Issac Newton made the discovery of heliocentrism, everyone thought that the planets revolved around the earth. It is psuedo science to make claims without prior evidence while claiming to use scientific system to back them up. The same way that justifying racism is using pseudo science for the beliefs that a person or a group has towards another group.Any INTPs hate the defense "MBTI isnt established science," to knock someone who believes something about it?
Do they not realize science once said the earth was flat?
That science once said whites are genetically superior to other races?
That science can be wrong and unestablished systems like MBTI can be accurate?
Does the faith people have in science annoy anyone else?
I wish people would see authority in themselves and not need it from outside sources.
It usually comes about through the selection and picking of things that are beneficial to that person's argument against things without looking at the full picture. Those that used science to genetically prove any race was superior to another race was not, in my opinion, a scientist. At least in the area the person or group claimed or claims to be.
To throw away science would be to throw away the proverbial keys to the chocolate factory. If a person can not use science which is the theorizing, observation and experimentation using the world and universe around us, then there is nothing else to be used.
Far as MBTI goes, it only shows a person what a person's personality and possible strengths, weaknesses are. Nothing more. Nothing less. Though... it is a weird subject to go into, it is a science of the mind. So it is an established science... it just needs more time to be explored.
Science can be used as just another form of extremism.
What I mean by that, to clarify...
There are many, many people who truly don't understand science, but they use it as some kind of shroud to appear smart, buck authority, or reinforce their emotional insecurities. The vast majority of people need a "god." They need some kind of higher power to tell them how to live their lives. With Christianity taking some hits in recent decades in western culture, the upcoming generations still need some other equivalent of an unquestioned overlord. Many find it in government, hence the slavering loyalty to a particular totalitarian ideology and the dismissal of concepts of freedom. Others - and many of the latter - find it in science, which they see as the opposite of religion and some kind of badge of intelligence and self sufficiency. The opposite is true. Instead of blindly trusting in a two thousand year old book and a spiritual father figure, they blindly trust in corrupt government, laughably flawed policies, and whatever a scientist says despite their own inability to comprehend the hard data and mathematics.
Tl, dr: We should believe in honest, proven science, but to treat science as some kind of infallible cult is a disservice to it. Remember, behind science is humans, and humans are extremely good at being wrong.
What I mean by that, to clarify...
There are many, many people who truly don't understand science, but they use it as some kind of shroud to appear smart, buck authority, or reinforce their emotional insecurities. The vast majority of people need a "god." They need some kind of higher power to tell them how to live their lives. With Christianity taking some hits in recent decades in western culture, the upcoming generations still need some other equivalent of an unquestioned overlord. Many find it in government, hence the slavering loyalty to a particular totalitarian ideology and the dismissal of concepts of freedom. Others - and many of the latter - find it in science, which they see as the opposite of religion and some kind of badge of intelligence and self sufficiency. The opposite is true. Instead of blindly trusting in a two thousand year old book and a spiritual father figure, they blindly trust in corrupt government, laughably flawed policies, and whatever a scientist says despite their own inability to comprehend the hard data and mathematics.
Tl, dr: We should believe in honest, proven science, but to treat science as some kind of infallible cult is a disservice to it. Remember, behind science is humans, and humans are extremely good at being wrong.
MBTI and many other personality theories aren't meant to be scientific in that they aren't theories that are seeking validation or falsification. Rather, their intent is to take a systematic approach to describing personality, often starting at some basic elements and creating personality types that mathematically result from the combination these building blocks. Discrepancies with real personality indicates limitations of the model.
My personal feeling is that there's an inverse relationship between the scientific rigor of a field of study and its applicability to real life. Abstract theoretical physics is some of the most rigorous study that can be done, but it's hard to apply to real life. Chemistry makes a few more assumptions in its approach, and interestingly enough is a bit more applicable to daily life (in cooking or whatever). Moving further down the spectrum, the study of economics begins to make a lot of assumptions in its attempts to model markets, but also becomes more useful to the layperson. Right at the end of the spectrum, we have MBTI and other similar personality theories, which lack academic rigor to a great degree but which are also leaps and bounds more applicable to one's life than is theoretical physics.
Another perspective is to compare it to music theory. Music theory is based entirely off of systematic mathematics and patterns in what we find consonant and dissonant. Much of music theory was well developed and understood before the wave theory of sound was developed and before we had a good scientific understanding of harmonic frequencies. However, these findings didn't invalidate music theory, they simply provided a more rigorous basis for its modeling assumptions. Perhaps someday psychological and neurological study will find some basis for the Jungian principles in MBTI.
Or maybe it's all a lot of hooey and we're wasting our precious time talking about it. Who cares, I have fun with it.
My personal feeling is that there's an inverse relationship between the scientific rigor of a field of study and its applicability to real life. Abstract theoretical physics is some of the most rigorous study that can be done, but it's hard to apply to real life. Chemistry makes a few more assumptions in its approach, and interestingly enough is a bit more applicable to daily life (in cooking or whatever). Moving further down the spectrum, the study of economics begins to make a lot of assumptions in its attempts to model markets, but also becomes more useful to the layperson. Right at the end of the spectrum, we have MBTI and other similar personality theories, which lack academic rigor to a great degree but which are also leaps and bounds more applicable to one's life than is theoretical physics.
Another perspective is to compare it to music theory. Music theory is based entirely off of systematic mathematics and patterns in what we find consonant and dissonant. Much of music theory was well developed and understood before the wave theory of sound was developed and before we had a good scientific understanding of harmonic frequencies. However, these findings didn't invalidate music theory, they simply provided a more rigorous basis for its modeling assumptions. Perhaps someday psychological and neurological study will find some basis for the Jungian principles in MBTI.
Or maybe it's all a lot of hooey and we're wasting our precious time talking about it. Who cares, I have fun with it.
MBTI is a pseudoscience. It's astrology with some science thrown in. Not to say it's completely useless, but it needs some serious refinement at least to cure the massive Barnum effect/Confirmation bias pitfall.
No, I don't really. It isn't science of scientific so it seems like a valid response. Lots of interesting discussions can be had about non-scientific topics though.Any INTPs hate the defense "MBTI isnt established science," to knock someone who believes something about it?
You do realize that the scientific method has changed quite a bit over time, right? MBTI would have been considered science when the earth is flat thing was deemed to be correct. Luckily the requirements for science have changed.Do they not realize science once said the earth was flat?
That science once said whites are genetically superior to other races?
That science can be wrong and unestablished systems like MBTI can be accurate?
I love science. Science has given us so much. However people need to know the limitations and strengths of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove mbti. At the same time, I feel quite the same about mbti. It certainly has its limitations and while it is fun to be around people sharing certain personality traits and it does offer certain insights, I do not feel like MBTI is a finished work (just like science).Does the faith people have in science annoy anyone else?
I wish people would see authority in themselves and not need it from outside sources.
What if MBTI is like one of those examples you give?Any INTPs hate the defense "MBTI isnt established science," to knock someone who believes something about it?
Do they not realize science once said the earth was flat?
That science once said whites are genetically superior to other races?
That science can be wrong and unestablished systems like MBTI can be accurate?
Does the faith people have in science annoy anyone else?
I wish people would see authority in themselves and not need it from outside sources.
The point is - stop using science as the sole basis for believing something. How easy it would be to trick you if you can't discern truth for yourself and believe in everything the scientific authority says.
I don't care or want MBTI to be scientifically proven. That is irrelevant.
There are other things in life that are accurate than just what can be plugged in to the scientific method.
I don't care or want MBTI to be scientifically proven. That is irrelevant.
There are other things in life that are accurate than just what can be plugged in to the scientific method.
What bothers me more is the startling number of people who act as if science is a thing rather than a process.
Science is ultimately a way of understanding the world.
Science and its religious-like followers reject anything mystical because those things can't be plugged into the process.
So MBTI, no matter sturdy the system is, gets called mystical astrology even though it's not.
Science and its religious-like followers reject anything mystical because those things can't be plugged into the process.
So MBTI, no matter sturdy the system is, gets called mystical astrology even though it's not.
You should never 'believe science'. I trust the people who perform science and value their work. But even then I encourage people to investigate the facts and evidence rather than to trust random conclusions. 'scientific authority' *shudders*The point is - stop using science as the sole basis for believing something. How easy it would be to trick you if you can't discern truth for yourself and believe in everything the scientific authority says.
Irrelevant is a big word here. If it were 'proven', I'm sure that it would be relevant.I don't care or want MBTI to be scientifically proven. That is irrelevant.
Undoubtedly.There are other things in life that are accurate than just what can be plugged in to the scientific method.
I tend to be interested in topics that science hasn't quite caught up to yet. Now it might become that you can't verify MBTI theory exactly as formulated (IE the fact some people can never find their type might indicate there's some personality dimension MBTI is ignoring), it describes enough about people's personalities that pans out in the real world that it's useful.Any INTPs hate the defense "MBTI isnt established science," to knock someone who believes something about it?
In short, this argument doesn't bother me. Science is slow to establish things, and life is too short to cut short pursuits of your interests to wait around or ignore it because current understanding of science said so
We have to ask the question, "which human phenomenon fall outside the domain of science and what status can we grant such things?"
I would go so far as to say that most things fall outside the purview of science when it comes to living one's daily life. The lived experience of embodied consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of our existence, but we don't have any way to talk about this scientifically. We have found ample ways to discuss things that correlate between the domain of science and the domain of consciousness, but we haven't reduced one to the other. To believe that this has been accomplished is the greatest sin of scientism. Science is very much a like a religion in the sense that it may become the running narrative that filters one's existence.
Science is cool and all, but at the end of the day, it is only an interpretive tool that helps us in a handful of circumstances.
I should also note that I become deeply suspicious whenever anyone uses the term "pseudoscience" as it hints at scientism. The arrogance of discarding everything that falls outside the domain of science is ridiculous.
I would go so far as to say that most things fall outside the purview of science when it comes to living one's daily life. The lived experience of embodied consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of our existence, but we don't have any way to talk about this scientifically. We have found ample ways to discuss things that correlate between the domain of science and the domain of consciousness, but we haven't reduced one to the other. To believe that this has been accomplished is the greatest sin of scientism. Science is very much a like a religion in the sense that it may become the running narrative that filters one's existence.
Science is cool and all, but at the end of the day, it is only an interpretive tool that helps us in a handful of circumstances.
I should also note that I become deeply suspicious whenever anyone uses the term "pseudoscience" as it hints at scientism. The arrogance of discarding everything that falls outside the domain of science is ridiculous.
Well said! Humans have barely begun to even identify the fundamentals of science. "Scientists" take plenty of unjustified liberties in the name of "science". They discover a few subatomic particles and think they invented them..The point is - stop using science as the sole basis for believing something. How easy it would be to trick you if you can't discern truth for yourself and believe in everything the scientific authority says.
I don't care or want MBTI to be scientifically proven. That is irrelevant.
There are other things in life that are accurate than just what can be plugged in to the scientific method.
One might say that science is not the only form of knowledge there is. Philosophy, mathematics, music and art are for instance branches of knowledge which do not follow the common scientific approaches with paradigms and the scientific method. Things can be true without having a peer-reviewed scientific article about it, but as an intellectual person, doesn't it bother you that typology is so hard to test scientifically? and that the attempts to do so are so mixed? could something ever convince you that functions didn't exist, and on what grounds do you think they do?
I think it is healthy to be a bit critical about it since there is still such a thing as a confirmation bias which might make you see patterns that really aren't there.
I think it is healthy to be a bit critical about it since there is still such a thing as a confirmation bias which might make you see patterns that really aren't there.
I think it's a good term to use when referring to things that claim to follow the scientific method but don't. Science is highly valued yes, but when someone claims "ufology" is a science, scientists would point out the methods are not scientific and pseudoscientific if they indeed claim to be science. If anything, psedoscience is more guilty of Scientism because it thinks it could garner more support by claiming to be science despite not actually using scientific methods.
On the other hand Scientism being the belief that scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge is stupid. Science is practically built off of induction and not reason. Part of the method itself is the belief that the more something occurs, the more likely it is to occur in the future, which is unjustifiable through reason. I can only accept Popper's concept of science but even that doesn't deliver "certain knowledge" just varying degrees of certainty through correction of mistakes.
Here's a point, if something is not scientifically verified that does not mean it is wrong. But it doesn't follow to say that something previously falsified should be considered. The establishment of science has made "incomplete or incorrect" claims before, but no one would go back and say "no the geocentric model is actually right, science isn't always right". We acquired more data that falsified that model.
On another note, Popper claimed that Freudian and Jungian theories are empirically unfalsifiable, meaning science would not be able to prove them false. Popper didn't really like them because they could not be proven false and to him, something has to be proven false to be criticized and corrected so that we can carve a path to more knowledge.
On the other hand Scientism being the belief that scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge is stupid. Science is practically built off of induction and not reason. Part of the method itself is the belief that the more something occurs, the more likely it is to occur in the future, which is unjustifiable through reason. I can only accept Popper's concept of science but even that doesn't deliver "certain knowledge" just varying degrees of certainty through correction of mistakes.
Here's a point, if something is not scientifically verified that does not mean it is wrong. But it doesn't follow to say that something previously falsified should be considered. The establishment of science has made "incomplete or incorrect" claims before, but no one would go back and say "no the geocentric model is actually right, science isn't always right". We acquired more data that falsified that model.
On another note, Popper claimed that Freudian and Jungian theories are empirically unfalsifiable, meaning science would not be able to prove them false. Popper didn't really like them because they could not be proven false and to him, something has to be proven false to be criticized and corrected so that we can carve a path to more knowledge.
And what mystical things are you proposing we accept on blind faith?Science and its religious-like followers reject anything mystical because those things can't be plugged into the process.
It's really pathetic how certain credulous people want to drag down the process of science into the mud with all the other filth and make it seem tantamount to faith by labeling it a "religion". I'm sorry no one is buying your magic healing crystals, but don't make out gullibility as some sort of virtue; it's a weakness.
You must not be familiar with science..And what mystical things are you proposing we accept on blind faith?
It's really pathetic how certain credulous people want to drag down the process of science into the mud with all the other filth and make it seem tantamount to faith by labeling it a "religion". I'm sorry no one is buying your magic healing crystals, but don't make out gullibility as some sort of virtue; it's a weakness.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Personality Cafe
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Pure Violet
1695 Replies
ENTJudgement
949 Replies
WickerDeer
767 Replies
