Personality Cafe banner

41 - 54 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
MBTI is a pseudoscience but it doesn't mean it should be treated like a buzzfeed quiz.
There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

You talk about Myers "bastardizing" Jung because she wanted "easy recognition," and you really couldn't be farther from the facts, and you should be ashamed of yourself. If it wasn't for Myers, chances are pretty good that few of us would ever have even heard of Psychological Types, which was largely ignored until Myers did the necessary data-gathering to figure out how the personality characteristics that Jung had focused on actually clustered in real people.

Jung included what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) in his very broad notion of what E/I involved. But Myers discovered that there are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there's no significant correlation between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. Jung said extraverts tend to subscribe to the mainstream cultural views of their time, while introverts tend to reject mainstream values in favor of their own individualistic choices. But Myers discovered that a typical ISTJ is significantly more likely to be a traditionalist than a typical (more independent-minded) ENTP. 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.

And so on. The appropriate way to view the Myers-Briggs typology is not as some kind of "bastardized" — or simplified (or more "testable") — version of Jung's original typology. Instead, it's fairer to say that the Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was very substantially modified — not to mention expanded — to fit the evidence.

Anyone who's interested can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).

Buuut contrary to what your fact-challenged posts might lead someone to believe, the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side — and the dichotomies differ greatly from the so-called "cognitive functions" in that regard. The functions — which James Reynierse (in that 2009 article I've already linked you to) rightly (IMHO) characterizes as a "category mistake" — have barely even been studied, and the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it, not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in that same article, it cited a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes: "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

And contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, and as Reynierse rightly points out, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible.

Myers spent quite a lot of Gifts Differing talking about aspects of personality that corresponded to any number of dichotomy combinations, including the combinations that purportedly correspond to the cognitive functions. But it's worth noting that she really didn't treat the function-related combinations as if they had any special significance — and in fact, Myers thought the most meaningful preference combinations were ST, SF, NT and NF (each of which includes four types with four different dominant functions).

In any case, though, any deep, true thing that can be said about a (supposed) Ti-dom, for example, can just as well be said about an I_TP. If you're looking for a limiting framework, give a listen to any of the large number of forumites whose posts indicate that the MBTI "letters" really don't say much about anyone, and that INTJs and INTPs have little in common — because I and N and T (and the IN and NT and IT combinations) pretty much just correspond to trivial "surface" stuff. There's the limiting and impoverished perspective if you ask me. And it certainly isn't a Jungian perspective. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
725 Posts
I don't see how anything in my posts is significantly inconsistent with anything in your latest post.

As you note, I don't say you can't be in (or near) the middle on E/I (or any other MBTI dimension). And I've repeatedly posted that MBTI type is about tendencies and probabilities (and that's true of both associated behavior and more internal characteristics), so it virtually never makes sense to say that X types "never" do this, or "always" do that.

So it sounds like we both believe that "the fact someone spends Friday night alone does not automatically make them an introvert." But I'd also note that I've never read a forum post by anybody that asserted that. Have you? And I certainly didn't read the OP's description of "people person" as that kind of cartoonish stereotype — which is why I objected to Pinina's assertion that things like whether somebody would be "likely to describe themselves as a 'people person'" (as the OP put it) were "not really covered by MBTI, and not supposed to be."
Yes, reckful, you all believe the same thing. And that's why @Living dead was annoyed with you in the first place. You had no reason to start this conversation, because what @Pinina originally posted also didn't contradict anything you said. Pinina was just saying that DISC is more appropriate in this context than MBTI. The former defines behavior, and the latter defines cognition. We all know that what you're saying is true, that they are related, and we can use this to say that a given MBTI would likely have certain behavioral tendencies. But that does not mean MBTI describes behavior, and Pinina was not wrong to say that it doesn't "really cover" it, Jung's writings notwithstanding. It doesn't cover it, in the same way that the classification of a fruit does not "cover" edibility and taste, even though the classification can rightfully be described as having the "tendency" to be edible and tasty. Judging by Living dead's response, I suspect your needless pedantry like the "correction" here is a regular occurrence, and you have an overestimation of how many people are "misinformed".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Yes, reckful, you all believe the same thing. And that's why @Living dead was annoyed with you in the first place. You had no reason to start this conversation, because what @Pinina originally posted also didn't contradict anything you said. Pinina was just saying that DISC is more appropriate in this context than MBTI. The former defines behavior, and the latter defines cognition. We all know that what you're saying is true, that they are related, and we can use this to say that a given MBTI would likely have certain behavioral tendencies. But that does not mean MBTI describes behavior, and Pinina was not wrong to say that it doesn't "really cover" it, Jung's writings notwithstanding. It doesn't cover it, in the same way that the classification of a fruit does not "cover" edibility and taste, even though the classification can rightfully be described as having the "tendency" to be edible and tasty. Judging by Living dead's response, I suspect your needless pedantry like the "correction" here is a regular occurrence, and you have an overestimation of how many people are "misinformed".
No, pernoctator, we don't "all believe the same thing." And what's more, there are things that are a matter of opinion and there are things that are a matter of fact.

I assume you know as well as I do how common it is to read, in PerC posts, that Jung and/or the MBTI, properly understood (hrmm, hrmm), are about deep-down "cognitive" stuff, and not "behavior," and that that makes it "hard" (as Pinina explained) — or shallow, or stereotypical, or otherwise kind of off — to associate MBTI types with "how we actually act" because that's "not really covered by MBTI" (again, Pinina's words).

But as I explained, Jung certainly didn't think it was "hard" to associate lots of "behavior" with a person's type, and this post (which I already linked to earlier in the thread) includes a collection of passages in which Jung associates extraversion and introversion with lots of behaviors.

And you know what else, pernoctator? In one very significant sense, Jung thought that behavioral results was really what type was about. Jung believed that extraversion and introversion were products of evolution, and had evolved as two opposing psychological orientations for the purpose of producing two different types of people who pursued two opposing survival strategies — i.e., two different sets of behaviors.

Here's part of what Jung said:

Jung said:
There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. ... [T]he peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring."
Evolution results from actual reproductive success, pernoctator — and that's a product of how the organism behaves. So as Jung saw it, introversion didn't evolve because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to think a certain way. Introversion evolved because Mother Nature wanted a substantial chunk of the human race to act a certain way. And so it's hardly surprising that Psychological Types is full of vivid descriptions of many ways Jung said introverts and extraverts differed in their behaviors.

Whether you're talking about purely internal stuff, purely behavioral stuff or stuff that's a messy mix (like, say, whether somebody's a "people person"), it's a mistake to say that either Jung or the MBTI only really "covers" the internal stuff. And what Pinina said (that prompted my first post) was that whether somebody is a "people person" is "not really covered by MBTI, and not supposed to be," because the MBTI is "all about the cognitive process."

And maybe Pinina didn't really mean what he seemed to me to be saying, and maybe you actually have the same perspective I do (although it really doesn't sound that way to me), but my posts, as usual, were aimed at all the thread readers — including any readers who might otherwise have been misled by Pinina's post because they read it the same way I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,680 Posts
I'm an ENFP and I describe myself as a "people person" very frequently. I actually just had a conversation with my roommate wherein I literally called myself a "people person" during our discussion.
 

·
🎀
Joined
·
11,795 Posts
@reckful,I think what we all are trying to say here is that you can't be sure of someone's type just by looking at them from the outside or by describing their behavior only.Because really,I can act however I decide to act,I can go face the world tomorrow looking like a completely different person than I was before and how would you determine my type based on behavior then?
edit:and that's why it's hard to type ourselves too,there's contradictions,there's million personas we put on in different situations,there's the gap between what is and what we want,etc. and in real life you don't think about it much but once you start thinking about the types it all comes out.
There's so much more to us than "mother nature",you aren't taking those factors into account.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,800 Posts
My Idea of a people person is someone who can interact with other people with skill effortlessly. I consider myself a people person under these terms, I can engage without feeling overwhelmed by topics and Ideas. The paradox to this is I don't consider myself a people person as I'd rather engage one on one and often find myself bored in the company of others.( group ) I pick and choose who I want to be social with, I can talk all day with the same people or different people depending on mood and topic.

The long and short of it is I can be very skilled socially, or leave everyone in the dust and be alone. And to end this I also want to say before someone comes along - social skills has nothing to do with introvert vs extrovert. Introverts talk as much if not more at times, so it depends on the topic or subject, common interest or knowledge.

Reminds me of something my Mom would always say. She would often tell me I wasn't a people person and force me into interacting with people that I had no interest in speaking with. She would tell me I was antisocial, now I didn't know what this meant as a kid, however I was really picky with whom I would have an open conversation with. Sometimes I believe I was forced so often into communication and ridiculed for not being social, this could be why I think I'm an extrovert or ambivert where I'm actually a natural Introvert.
 

·
🎀
Joined
·
11,795 Posts
I assume that's something we can all agree on.
Then I really have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say and what's the point of 99% of your posts,the ones I've seen at least,all being about explaining the more extreme version of what's obvious to anyone who has been studying MBTI for more than a week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
My ESFJ friend describes himself as a people person, and he is right! He is really good at talking his way out of things and he's very generous. He has a lot of friends too, people gravitate toward him!
One of my closest friends is an ENTP and she is a definite people person too, she makes friends WHEREVER she goes.
I'm an ENFP and I am not really a strong people person though hahaha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Then I really have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say and what's the point of 99% of your posts,the ones I've seen at least,all being about explaining the more extreme version of what's obvious to anyone who has been studying MBTI for more than a week.
You can trust me when I say that I am genuinely sorry that you're missing the point of 99% of my posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
You can tell the sensors who get hung up on the words/terminology. It's about the overall attitude of seeing onself as liking people, living for people, even if you don't necessarily use the phrase 'people person.'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
"Go read Jung's stuff" really doesn't need a 2000 word essay every single post.
Testify! I totally agree with that.

And I generally don't encourage people with a more-or-less average interest in the MBTI to subject themselves to Psychological Types. It's far from an easy read, for one thing, and Jung got quite a lot wrong, for another.

But much of the MBTI started from Jung's ideas, and many of the forumites with mistaken views on one or more aspects of the MBTI are under the impression that their perspectives are Jungian when they're not — or at least significantly less Jungian than they think. So that's just one of several reasons why I think it can be useful for me to offer them selected Jung quotes, and summaries of Jung's views.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain that. I remember you explaining to me earlier this week that you're busy and/or lazy, so as always, I appreciate your taking the time to read my posts.
 
41 - 54 of 54 Posts
Top