Personality Cafe banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As you all know, MBTI tries to make sense of people by slicing them up into 16 different personalities. It is a theory based on (only) eight cognitive functions identified through careful introspection by Carl Jung. But what happens when the evidence and the theory are at war?

The first rule of science is that theory must match the evidence, or, in other words, the theory is there to explain the evidence. Theory is an abstract model of reality. Thus, if you clinge to a faulty theory, reality becomes more fuzzy instead of more clear. This is known as cognitive dissonance, in which the person clinges more to his faulty belief (= theory. belief and theory are identical, both are abstract explanations of reality) the more he comes in contact with reality which inevitably contradicts faulty theories. He does this to avoid the annoyance of self-reflection and self-corrigation, and the more he avoids this, the bigger the annoyance becomes and the less likely to return to blank state. All religious fundamentalists hence suffer from cognitive dissonance. A true religious person, granted the religious beliefs are out-of-touch with science/reality (note: these two are not identical, since there is alot of faulty science, nonetheless, the nature of the scientific method is that it must produce realistic theories), inevitably becomes a fundamentalist, if he puts his religion above all else in life. They fool themselves they are on God's side to strengthen the cognitive dissonance. Heck, their pride comes from this very dissonance, since the bigger believers get rewarded by the religion, and the very practice of self-reflection and healthy doubt may end you up in "hell". Organized religion truly comes from the devil himself. There is a saying, it goes: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convince the world he didn't exist." I have a new one: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convince the world he is God."

Ofcourse religious fundamentalism, outside the Middle-East, is becoming rare, since the thread between modern everyday life and religion becomes thinner every day. That is not to say that different forms of fundamentalism cannot arise. All you gotta do, is cling to a faulty belief OR theory. Some people dare say that skepticism and materialism/new atheism is the new religion. Ofcourse, the skeptic correctly counters that this is foolish, because religion equals theism, hence atheism is the opposite of religion. Sure, but isn't the opposite of the coin still part of that very coin? Indeed it is! The theory of materialism (the belief that mind is a product of matter (as opposed to matter being a product of (the) mind (of God))) has absolutely no evidence behind it. It does not align with reality. All materialists have in their argument is that science has disproven religion, and this they attribute as evidence of the other way around. In fact, disproof of the faulty is not proof of the contrary:
Say X=5. If religion says, X=22, then materialists say, X=22 = False, THUS X=-22. This is how crazy these people are. Science/reality has thus just as little to do with materialism. The problem is, that the materialists have claimed science as their property, they have enslaved science, infested it like parasites. Christian scientists in the past were determined to prove God with science, now we have materialist scientists determined to prove that all mind is a product of matter. Have they forgotten the principle of science, in that science seeks to explain the evidence? (You think it is a coincidence that the paranormal is the only taboo subject in modern science?) As such, there is nothing scientific about seeking evidence for your belief, whether that belief is spiritual or materialist. All a bunch of cognitive dissonance bafoons.


So now we have the MBTI. As I remember correctly, this theory was developped on top of the theory of Jung. Jung's theory was never held under scrutiny. It was simply accepted because it "made sense". It was never tested whether the eight cognitive functions actually existed, and, also importantly, whether they exist independent of eachother (if they do not exist independent of eachother they cannot be called functions). What happens when you build a house of cards on a house of cards? Collapse. Only when you build a house of cards on a solid foundation (the foundation of reality) will your house of cards stand. Jung is not a solid foundation to build personality types on. If Jung says: "The universe was created in 7 days." MBTI says: "The first day created ..., the second day created ..., the third day created ...,...".

But, to truly know whether the theory is realistic or not is to look at whether MBTI explains the evidence, or whether the evidence must fit the MBTI theory. What is the evidence in this case? People. According to the MBTI, every single person on Earth must be one of either 16 personality types. Every single person on Earth in non-stressful situations must always lead with one of eight cognitive functions. If only one person on Earth is capable of switching dominant functions or if one person on Earth may lead with a different function then either of the 8 described by Jung, or if one person on Earth uses a mix of functions as his dominant (ambiverts for example), this already discredits the whole typing business.

Personally, I have identified with numerous personality types. I have identified with xNFP, ENTP, INFJ and even ISTP. And this is not just me, everyday the forums are filled with confused newbies thinking there's something wrong with them because they cannot find out their personality type. Everyday I see people who have changed their mbti avatar to a completely different type than a few months before. These anomalies happen in the background. They appear infrequent but they are highly frequent in reality. Nobody appears to be 100% sure of their type. It's all like a big fog of confusion, the moment you allow MBTI to alter your understanding of self and others. Over-time you become desperate to validate your personality theory with reality. You begin typing everyone you encounter. You begin the quest of trying to make sense of the world through MBTI. You see a person in an emotional outburst, and you say to yourself, "values have probably been stepped on, so that's likely to be an Fi dom...". You begin wearing this typing glasses in social interaction. You begin to alter your behaviour once you've found out somebody's type (example, scan=F -> alter behaviour to political correctness). You make sure you act within your type and you exclude or rationalize anomalies (for example, thinkers acting like feelers and intuitive friends becoming obsessed with sensation seeking..) as to not contradict the MBTI theory/belief. But have you ever asked yourself: "Shouldn't the theory explain our behaviour instead of having to alter our behaviour so the theory doesn't get contradicted?"

Imo, all that MBTI does is give people a false sense of identity. Not only this, but it also gives a false sense of understanding other people's identities. MBTI shares many similarities with the above examples of the fundamentalist, based on cognitive dissonance as a result on clinging on theories which are not grounded in reality. Some have identified MBTI as a sort of cult. I can't say I disagree. It requires absolute obedience to the theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
Well, don't take it fanatically, don't type everyone you see and don't take it too seriously. Certainly there are those who do that and take it to the extreme, but it's nothing but a mere trial for understanding. And it sits well with me. i do know however, that some of my friends had the hardest bang-your-head-against-the-wall-if-you-wanna-convince-me episode when i told them about the mbti or bring such nonsense hocus bocus to their scientific table. It's the main scheme of everything.


You might wanna look into the enneagram too, it gives more insight to the (false identities) that simple minded individuals like to accept and go about in their trials to understand themselves, or justify it maybe, in extreme cases ofcourse, there will always be extremists, as there wil always be people in the middle.

One last thing, i find myself obligated to say it as long as i'm replying to your post: i believe in one God created everything, and everything follows the same pattern. Nothing new under the sun. I just found this laughable
Organized religion truly comes from the devil himself
i'm understanding though of what might make such ideas pop up.

I think i'm gonna tease you by saying you're ISTP =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
Well thought out case in most places. A few details are wrong, but I'm not really interested in pointing them out.

Good luck getting people to hear you, let alone understand you. Much of the defense of the theory goes like this: ignore reality when it doesn't fit, encompass reality when it does, as you've pointed out.

Eh, I can only say what you already know. Personally, I desperately need to stop coming to this site and thinking about MBTI because even after realizing it's absolute bullshit, it's still infected me like a mental virus(see meme).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
A good way to look at MBTI is to say "80-95% of people follow more than half of the stereotypes of one of 16 types." This isn't something Jung said, but this is how I look at it. There are outliers, and they aren't extraordinarily rare, but the MBTI system does well in helping most people define themselves.

Due to my non-scientific estimate (I really estimate 90-95% of people), it is also easy to see how MBTI can help people who don't fit in the MBTI categories; because most people do, one can learn a lot about how to interact with other types, and more importantly why interactions vary so greatly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
As you all know, MBTI tries to make sense of people by slicing them up into 16 different personalities.
Or sixteen function preference sets. Personality is a comparitively amorphous term, and is ultimately inexact when applied to the mechanical function of MBTI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
According to the MBTI, every single person on Earth must be one of either 16 personality types. Every single person on Earth in non-stressful situations must always lead with one of eight cognitive functions. If only one person on Earth is capable of switching dominant functions or if one person on Earth may lead with a different function then either of the 8 described by Jung, or if one person on Earth uses a mix of functions as his dominant (ambiverts for example), this already discredits the whole typing business.
Attacking straw men is fun for you, isn't it? Alas, it wastes everyone else's time.

Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four of the MBTI dimensions, and no MBTI source I've ever read says that "every single person" will "always lead" with one particular "function" in all "non-stressful situations."

And meanwhile, there's quite a lot of MBTI and Big Five data that suggests that some or all of the MBTI dimensions may exhibit something like a normal distribution. Which is fine — except with you, I guess. You seem to be suggesting that, if there are ambiverts, it turns typologies that include introversion/extraversion into cults. Or something. At the least, it "discredits the whole typing business."

Am I straw manning you? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
And meanwhile, there's quite a lot of MBTI and Big Five data that suggests that some or all of the MBTI dimensions may exhibit something like a normal distribution. Which is fine — except with you, I guess. You seem to be suggesting that, if there are ambiverts, it turns typologies that include introversion/extraversion into cults. Or something. At the least, it "discredits the whole typing business."

Am I straw manning you? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.
Yes, because ambiverts are the outcasts of MBTI. They cannot be explained by MBTI, as MBTI treats E and I parts of the same function as unique, separate functions. The I/E dimension (J/P is not a dimension because it is a result of I/E) is the dimension with the most impact according to MBTI as it also determines all following functions, as opposed to the N/S or F/T. Shift Ne with Ni and the ENTP becomes INTJ, all functions are altered. Shift Ne with Se and you get ESTP, only 2 functions are altered, 2 remain. Hence, ambiverts, if they exist, are dangerous evidence against mainstream MBTI theory as their very nature denies the I/E dimension, the foundation of typing. New evidence are outcasts. The theory can either be altered/improved so that the outcasts get included (correct way of science), or the outcasts get ignored in favor of the old theory. In the second case, the theory becomes dogmatic, unwilling to admit its faults. Ofcourse, theories do not have life on their own. It is us that gives them power, that sustain them. And seeing as MBTI theory is no longer lead by anyone (no one to alter it, to update it), I doubt it will ever change. It is an old theory set loose, like a wild dog. Because of this I envision it will only become more dogmatic. There is a reason most scientists frown upon MBTI, and it's not because it isn't a hard science, it's because it's out-of-date and has no intention of becoming up-to-date, in-line with the evidence.


That aside, I also think that Ne and Te cannot possibly be as extraverted as their S and F counterparts (and likewise, that Si and Fi cannot possibly be as introverted as their N and T counterparts), evidenced by the huge number of "introverted" ENxPs and ENTJ's. The official theory makes no sense because N and T can be viewed as being abstract counterparts of S and F, which are more concrete because they deal with the here and now. Abstraction is imo almost identical to introversion. This is in-line with the evidence which shows that introverts have more active neocortexes (part of the brain which deals with reasoning/thinking/planning, hence abstract part), and extraverts being more susceptible to reward mechanisms of the limbic system (quote: “But just as the amygdala of a high-reactive person is more sensitive than average to novelty, so do extroverts seem to be more susceptible than introverts to the reward-seeking cravings of the old brain. In fact, some scientists are starting to explore the idea that reward-sensitivity is not only an interesting feature of extroversion; it is what makes an extrovert an extrovert.” source: Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking: Susan Cain, Kathe Mazur: 9780739341247: Amazon.com: Books) Now, I'm not saying Ne, Te do not exist, I'm simply saying that less importance needs to be placed on the E/I dimension, if for example Ne indeed has more in common with Ni than Se, or if Se idd has more in common with Si than Ne. This cannot be so according to official MBTI theory, where the E/I dimension has the most impact in determining your type. But let's say that E/I did idd have the most impact, then it should be the hardest brick to break. Yet I see more people questioning whether they're an extravert or introvert, than sensor/intuitive or thinker/feeler. It is unlikely that a feeler believes she's a thinker, or that an intuitive thinks he's a sensor, yet confusion on their E/I scale often arises.

I also have a hard time believing in types which have a judging function as their dominant. How can you lead with T, if you have no information to think about (or more accurately, logically put into places)? Take the INTP for example. This guy supposedly leads with Ti, followed by Ne. The dominant function is more active than the auxiliary. Hence, Ti must be more active than Ne. Hence, this guy must use logic more than intuition (simplified). How the heck is this possible? How the heck is it possible to use logic or T more than N, as this implies that this guy uses judgement more than the information he has available? He judges more information than he has available? Or does this imply that one can judge non-information, which is ofcourse ridiculous? Yet this is what the MBTI assumes. Hence, I think the INTP is actually identical to the ENTP, who simply places more importance on his secondary Ti function than the ENTP. The same applies for S and F. It is not possible to feel for something (or express your values) that does not exist, it is not possible to feel for a no-thing. There must first be concrete/sensual information to feel for, be that another person, animals, the planet, etc.. Ofcourse you can also be an intuitive feeler, such as an idealistic NF. Yet even in this case there must still be abstract information. For example, a spiritual F who believes in God must have abstract information, because God is the pinnacle of abstraction, supposedly (not arguing for his existence here :p) having no concrete form. (If God exists, then he must be an introvert supreme. Hence the fucked up nature of organized extravert religion.) Hence, I would say a grand total of 8 types which all have a judgement function as their dominant are contradictory. Now, if you are one of these types, I'm not saying your existence is contradictory, I'm simply saying your dominant judging function cannot be stronger than your secondary perceiving information gathering function, although they can be equal.


Conclusion: The problem with MBTI typing theory is that it views all three dimensions (yes I realize there are officially four, yet J/P is an outcome of E/I. To label J/P as a dimension is ridiculous. J/P is only there as an additional letter to identify the dominant function) as equal in rank. Evidence shows that the biggest gap in communication is found in N/S. Hence N/S is the most solid dimension, and hence needs to be the primary with the biggest impact (as opposed to current E/I), which deals with information gathering itself (abstract or concrete). The next dimension should be T/F, who also appear to conflict on many issues. Only then should come E/I, for minor adjustments. (And ofcourse J/P as always needs to be ignored, but the letters may stay as they are now to correctly identify types.)

So, here is a quick attempt at new model:

eSFp (Se>Fi)
eSTp (Se>Ti)
iSFp (Se=Fi)
iSTp (Se=Ti)

eSFj (Si=Fe)
iSFj (Si>Fe)
iSTj (Si>Te)
eSTj (Si=Te)

iNFp (Ne=Fi)
eNFp (Ne>Fi)
eNTp (Ne>Ti)
iNTp (Ne=Ti)

eNFj (Ni=Fe)
eNTj (Ni=Te)
iNFj (Ni>Fe)
iNTj (Ni>Te)

I've applied three modifiers (bold, capital and italic) on the letters here to emphasize the hierarchy of the dimensions. The more modifiers, the stronger the impact of the letter on the personality.

I would also then rework the four temperaments, by basing the temperaments only on the strongest dimension (S/N), the information gathering one. Hence, my suggestion for the temperaments is:
1) The extraverted sensors (= old Artisans).
2) The introverted sensors (= old Guardians).
3) The extraverted intuitives (= Creatives?).
4) The introverted intuitives (= Watchers?).

If you want eight temperaments, then we would have:
1) The Se perceivers.
2) The Se judgers.
3) The Si feelers.
4) The Si thinkers.
5) The Ne feelers.
6) The Ne thinkers.
7) The Ni judgers.
8) The Ni perceivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Well, first of all, as explained in this long INTJforum post, although Myers gave considerable lip service to the cognitive functions (aka "type dynamics"), she thought the dichotomies were the main event, and the official MBTI establishment remains strongly dichotomy-centric today (including in the MBTI's "Step II" incarnation).

Second, Jung actually spent more of Psychological Types talking about the stuff that all introverts and all extraverts have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together, so it's certainly arguable that, to Jung, the E/I dimension was really the core of his typology. In any event, Jung said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, so, contrary to the perspective in your posts, Jung certainly didn't think that the existence of ambiverts was fatal to his typology.

And third, as explained in that linked post, I'm a "dichotomies guy" myself. So arguments that ambiverts pose a problem for certain functions models don't really interest me much in any case, except that I'd note that, to the extent that that's true — and that really depends on the oversimplicity and/or rigidity of the model you're talking about — it would be one more reason to reject that particular cognitive functions model (if not functions models generally).

Your latest post, like your first post, takes issue with a straw man "MBTI" that dogmatically asserts that a person can't be an ambivert. Can you point me to any well-known MBTI source that says that?

As a final note, with regard to your proposed new model: Good luck with that. If, like Myers, you devote a substantial chunk of your life to gathering data and it ends up supporting your model, I'll be the first to say people should sit up and take notice. But I won't be holding my breath in the meantime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Well, first of all, as explained in this long INTJforum post, although Myers gave considerable lip service to the cognitive functions (aka "type dynamics"), she thought the dichotomies were the main event, and the official MBTI establishment remains strongly dichotomy-centric today (including in the MBTI's "Step II" incarnation).

Second, Jung actually spent more of Psychological Types talking about the stuff that all introverts and all extraverts have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together, so it's certainly arguable that, to Jung, the E/I dimension was really the core of his typology. In any event, Jung said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, so, contrary to the perspective in your posts, Jung certainly didn't think that the existence of ambiverts was fatal to his typology.
I'm not denying the importance of E/I, I just don't believe it overrides N/S. I believe all N's are naturally more introverted than all S's. I believe all N's are actually introverts, because N implies abstraction (internal world), and all S's are actually extraverts, because S implies the concrete (external world). I actually think that N and I (& S and E) are really the bloody same. So then the difference between Ne and Ni is really nothing more than a weak(/negative) intuitive/introvert vs a strong(/positive) intuitive/introvert, and the difference between Se and Si is then also nothing more than a strong sensor/extravert vs a weak sensor/extravert. If you believe the official MBTI theory then the ENTP is an extravert and the ISFJ is an introvert. I don't agree, I think the ENTP is naturally more of an introvert than the ISFJ. Or in other words, the ENTP is an introvert focused on the external world (negative introvert), while the ISFJ is an extravert focused on the internal world (negative introvert). An INTJ with Ni would then be a positive/true introvert, and an ESFP with Se would then be a positive/true extravert. Official theory suggests that the ENTP may be one of the most introverted extraverts, yet I say the ENTP is an extraverted introvert. I'd say then that all Ne's and Si's are more or less ambiverts, and the same holds true to a lesser degree for Te and Fi. You don't have to agree with this because I can't provide evidence (currently), but this is the only thing that makes sense to me and is in-line with my personal observations and experience.

Your latest post, like your first post, takes issue with a straw man "MBTI" that dogmatically asserts that a person can't be an ambivert. Can you point me to any well-known MBTI source that says that?
I guess you're right. But then again, there is no indicator that handles the "strength" of your type/functions. You must join one of sixteen types, but if you're an ambivert, you are always a "weak" type. A weak ESTP is then a weak extravert, or ambivert. A strong ESTP is then a strong extravert. A weak ESTP will likely operate in his shadow a good portion of his time, and so perhaps has more in common with a weak ISTJ/INFJ than his other ESTP friends. MBTI typing doesn't measure this function "strength", and therefore excludes ambiverts. I don't see how this is presenting a straw man.

On the other hand, if we list all Si's and Ne's (& Fi's and Te's to a lesser degree) as ambiverts as explained by my former paragraph, then the "strength" of the type/functions does not need to be included as this ambivert/"middle ground" problem is then inherintly solved. It really makes more sense to say that about 1/3th of the types are more or less ambiverts than to say that all types are either extraverted or introverted. It's better to work with continuums than with extremes.

As a final note, with regard to your proposed new model: Good luck with that. If, like Myers, you devote a substantial chunk of your life to gathering data and it ends up supporting your model, I'll be the first to say people should sit up and take notice. But I won't be holding my breath in the meantime.
Who knows.. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Ignore this thread, I was wrong. Sensing and intuition have nothing to do with information gathering, but about perceiving information already gathered (via the 5 senses). Hence it is indeed possible to use T or F more than N or S, as the official theory suggests. I believed that N/T were abstract functions (neocortex), while S/F were concrete functions (limbic system). Yet, I now realize all of these functions are part of the neocortex. The personality is the vested in the neocortex, hence personality functions such as S and F cannot be limbic system. N and F are likely to be right hemisphere ("everything is connected"), while S and T are likely to be left hemisphere (factual and logical), simply speaking. Yet all of them are abstract, hence neocortex.
Hence, my hypothesis that N/T cannot be as extraverted as S/F (or S/F as introverted as N/T) is wrong. They are simply two sides of the same coin, like reason and faith. The only thing that is likely be true is that extraversion is more closely in-tune with the limbic system than introversion.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top