[Heresy]

Objective:-


There is no scientific evidence for the cognitive functions. They are based on groundless speculation. Countless tests have proven somewhere between 36-72% of people will be scored a different MBTI in 6 months.


If you’ve read your type and you feel that it especially matches you, you may want to be a little more critical. Most statements used to describe the types are general statements that apply to almost anyone. The more specific of the statements are ones that require you to think back to how you’ve acted at any previous given moment. However, anyone who has lived more than say 14 years of their life will be able to relate to more or less all the statements made for each type if they attach it to a specific time in their life.
This is comparables with methods used in astrology. Although, this is not an original analogy. Consider the words from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State University (NMSU).

“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than Astrology”

“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments, hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind of their co-workers.”

Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.

"[Tests] trivialize human behaviour by assuming that (fake) attitudes predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no explanations for behaviour beyond the circular proposition that behaviour is caused by traits which are inferred from behaviour,".

"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with vested interests in their continued use,"

If anyone can direct me to someone with similar credentials who is purporting Myers-Briggs as accurate and genuinely insightful, yet stands to make no gain from people’s obsession with Myers-Briggs then I would be very grateful if you could direct me.


It is not confirmation of MBTI’s validity that a lot of intelligent people can relate to the types they are placed in and are thus convinced that it may contain truth. A lot of intelligent people are genuinely convinced of the literal teachings of the bible and in astrology. Astrology will be accurate for a lot of people largely because of the general vocabulary used, much like Myers-Briggs. Consider the frequent repetition of words like “may”, “can” and “sometimes”. All such statements are void since all people “may” do some things, all people “can” do most things and all people “sometimes” feel, analyse, envision and react. And the extent does not have to be proportionate to your MBT.


My point is, do not so disregard yourself as by trying desperately to fit yourself into any one of sixteen types. Do not constrict yourself by seeking out what appears to be similar types. Myers-Briggs can be fun, it can be a useful tool for finding a career, if you can relate to a type, the odds are that career suggestions can have accuracy. The reason for this is not in a special web of personality created by different traits but because the traits themselves will be useful in your career. For example, a frequent career suggestion for INTPs is Mathematician. “How astonishingly accurate!” you might cry, but if you consider the traits, the reason for this is obvious.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as an Introvert must like to spend time alone more than with people. Mathematicians too must direct their feelings inwards to their own ideas and thought processes and away from the distractions around them.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as iNtuitive must be more drawn to theory than to concrete “here and now” realities. Mathematicians obviously need to focus their attention on theory.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as Thinking must prefer analysing and making objective decisions to making warm and subjective decisions. This is just obviously a factor in mathematics.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as Perceiving must be prone to thinking outside the box and staying open to new possibilities. This is less necessary than the other traits for a mathematician but still an advantage over the alternative; diligent and close-minded.


Thus it can be seen that mathematicians who are satisfied with their job frequently identifying themselves as INTPs is nothing out of the ordinary.
People’s absolute determination to classify themselves even when it is contrary to common-sense is part of human nature. It is the same with personality types as with nationality. It is a way to belong, to justify your shortcomings and give you a sense of identity. This can be comforting, but be careful. Because that same comfort can lead you to mechanise humanise nature and even waste all your creative and analytical abilities on something which is no more than a delusionary tangent.


And what is more beautiful and comforting truly? That we are all just predictable and simple creatures bound by one of sixteen frameworks? Or as the Buddha said, that there is no such thing as self, that we are reborn each instant.


From a human-being, no more, no less.

 

[Donny]

That is a cop-out. It is a question of maturity and management of abstraction. Everything you "know" is due to Deletion, Distortion and Generalization of perception. The question is not if you should do it or not. It is a question of knowing what you do, and take the risk and benefit of the approach into consideration.

 

[Heresy]

Could you be a little more specific please, I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

This is 100% on the individual and how they approach it and why they want to use it. There is nothing wrong with typology if you actually abide by the logical principles behind it. However, what is dangerous, as you rightly pointed out, is typing BEHAVIOR and trying to change BEHAVIOR to fit whatever your random impression of a type is. This is what leads to rampant stereotyping, since there is no one way any type is supposed to come off as, but in order for this stuff to work behaviorally, such a method needs to be created, which is where the MBTI fails big time. Do some behavioral trends exist? In very vague ways, they quite likely do, but since they are vague, I'm not sure how people can really work with them as even behaviors - they would just correlate with particular cognitive function manifestations under the type dynamics of certain types. This is typing the persona, not the inherent personality, which Jung attempted to get down to with his original, non-MBTI behaviorist-tainted theory. So, Jung and MBTI are incompatible on the grounds that one is psychology and one isn't - it's behavioral science. I don't have to tell you which is which - it's pretty obvious. I highly doubt that they were based on "groundless speculation" if Jung actually worked with mental patients and made consistent observations about type dynamics and such from this empirical approach. But if anyone has an axe to grind with Jung, they're free to, but it's pointless anyhow, since Jung is long gone, and there are a lot of people out there who have modeled trends and are starting to look into the neurological trends behind type, where more trends have been found (e.g. Dario Nardi's brain research). Jung probably did the best he could in his own time to find empirical backing for his type theory, other than he was a bit resistant to simplifying his ideas. For all of the people here who do believe in type, then what does that make us? Delusional? It's on the individual whether or not they want to get into this stuff and apply it or not. No one's telling anyone what to do with it, except the MBTI states that it is unethical to force someone into a type or force someone to take a test without their permission.

 

[LiquidLight]

Objective:-


There is no scientific evidence for the cognitive functions. They are based on groundless speculation. Countless tests have proven somewhere between 36-72% of people will be scored a different MBTI in 6 months.


If you’ve read your type and you feel that it especially matches you, you may want to be a little more critical. Most statements used to describe the types are general statements that apply to almost anyone. The more specific of the statements are ones that require you to think back to how you’ve acted at any previous given moment. However, anyone who has lived more than say 14 years of their life will be able to relate to more or less all the statements made for each type if they attach it to a specific time in their life.
This is comparables with methods used in astrology. Although, this is not an original analogy. Consider the words from David M. Boje, Ph.D., Professor of Management in the Management Department, CBAE at New Mexico State University (NMSU).

“…do not treat the archetype scores of M-B as anything more than Astrology”

“The test is not valid or legal to use for personnel assignments, hiring, or promotion. It does not have predictive validity for such uses. It is a useful guide, and no more. Problem is, people go to a workshop, get excited and treat M-B as a secret window into the mind of their co-workers.”

Robert Spillane, Professor of Management at the Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University argues that research shows that efforts to predict performance from personality and motivation tests have been consistently and spectacularly unsuccessful.

"[Tests] trivialize human behaviour by assuming that (fake) attitudes predict performance. Not only is this incorrect but testers offer no explanations for behaviour beyond the circular proposition that behaviour is caused by traits which are inferred from behaviour,".

"The technical deficiencies of most personality tests have been known for many years. Yet they are conveniently ignored by those with vested interests in their continued use,"

If anyone can direct me to someone with similar credentials who is purporting Myers-Briggs as accurate and genuinely insightful, yet stands to make no gain from people’s obsession with Myers-Briggs then I would be very grateful if you could direct me.


It is not confirmation of MBTI’s validity that a lot of intelligent people can relate to the types they are placed in and are thus convinced that it may contain truth. A lot of intelligent people are genuinely convinced of the literal teachings of the bible and in astrology. Astrology will be accurate for a lot of people largely because of the general vocabulary used, much like Myers-Briggs. Consider the frequent repetition of words like “may”, “can” and “sometimes”. All such statements are void since all people “may” do some things, all people “can” do most things and all people “sometimes” feel, analyse, envision and react. And the extent does not have to be proportionate to your MBT.


My point is, do not so disregard yourself as by trying desperately to fit yourself into any one of sixteen types. Do not constrict yourself by seeking out what appears to be similar types. Myers-Briggs can be fun, it can be a useful tool for finding a career, if you can relate to a type, the odds are that career suggestions can have accuracy. The reason for this is not in a special web of personality created by different traits but because the traits themselves will be useful in your career. For example, a frequent career suggestion for INTPs is Mathematician. “How astonishingly accurate!” you might cry, but if you consider the traits, the reason for this is obvious.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as an Introvert must like to spend time alone more than with people. Mathematicians too must direct their feelings inwards to their own ideas and thought processes and away from the distractions around them.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as iNtuitive must be more drawn to theory than to concrete “here and now” realities. Mathematicians obviously need to focus their attention on theory.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as Thinking must prefer analysing and making objective decisions to making warm and subjective decisions. This is just obviously a factor in mathematics.


- Anyone who identifies themselves as Perceiving must be prone to thinking outside the box and staying open to new possibilities. This is less necessary than the other traits for a mathematician but still an advantage over the alternative; diligent and close-minded.


Thus it can be seen that mathematicians who are satisfied with their job frequently identifying themselves as INTPs is nothing out of the ordinary.
People’s absolute determination to classify themselves even when it is contrary to common-sense is part of human nature. It is the same with personality types as with nationality. It is a way to belong, to justify your shortcomings and give you a sense of identity. This can be comforting, but be careful. Because that same comfort can lead you to mechanise humanise nature and even waste all your creative and analytical abilities on something which is no more than a delusionary tangent.


And what is more beautiful and comforting truly? That we are all just predictable and simple creatures bound by one of sixteen frameworks? Or as the Buddha said, that there is no such thing as self, that we are reborn each instant.


From a human-being, no more, no less.

Well again we're confusing MBTI with Jung. Cognitive Functions are Jung's theory and part of a much larger psychological picture. MBTI oversimplifies this down into a behavioral theory that is dubious at best in terms of accuracy.

Jung's theories are built around ideas like complexes, conscious/unconscious, repression, etc., are actually more mainstream. The MBTI and temperament theories like Kiersey are sort of narrower focuses on behavior, social roles, etc not psychology.

 

[Donny]

Could you be a little more specific please, I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with.

The point:

If you’ve read your type and you feel that it especially matches you, you may want to be a little more critical. Most statements used to describe the types are general statements that apply to almost anyone. The more specific of the statements are ones that require you to think back to how you’ve acted at any previous given moment. However, anyone who has lived more than say 14 years of their life will be able to relate to more or less all the statements made for each type if they attach it to a specific time in their life.
This is comparables with methods used in astrology.

And then quoting a lot of people with "impressive" credentials. Those people told us to eat 6-8 slices of bread each day, and now we got LCHF.

What is more beautiful? That there is a structure to the madness. Every little piece we can find.

 

[Heresy]

This is 100% on the individual and how they approach it and why they want to use it. There is nothing wrong with typology if you actually abide by the logical principles behind it. However, what is dangerous, as you rightly pointed out, is typing BEHAVIOR and trying to change BEHAVIOR to fit whatever your random impression of a type is. This is what leads to rampant stereotyping, since there is no one way any type is supposed to come off as, but in order for this stuff to work behaviorally, such a method needs to be created, which is where the MBTI fails big time. Do some behavioral trends exist? In very vague ways, they quite likely do, but since they are vague, I'm not sure how people can really work with them as even behaviors - they would just correlate with particular cognitive function manifestations under the type dynamics of certain types. This is typing the persona, not the inherent personality, which Jung attempted to get down to with his original, non-MBTI behaviorist-tainted theory. So, Jung and MBTI are incompatible on the grounds that one is psychology and one isn't - it's behavioral science. I don't have to tell you which is which - it's pretty obvious. I highly doubt that they were based on "groundless speculation" if Jung actually worked with mental patients and made consistent observations about type dynamics and such from this empirical approach. But if anyone has an axe to grind with Jung, they're free to, but it's pointless anyhow, since Jung is long gone, and there are a lot of people out there who have modeled trends and are starting to look into the neurological trends behind type, where more trends have been found (e.g. Dario Nardi's brain research). Jung probably did the best he could in his own time to find empirical backing for his type theory, other than he was a bit resistant to simplifying his ideas. For all of the people here who do believe in type, then what does that make us? Delusional? It's on the individual whether or not they want to get into this stuff and apply it or not. No one's telling anyone what to do with it, except the MBTI states that it is unethical to force someone into a type or force someone to take a test without their permission.

I agree mostly. I would say however that types do not really appear to be fixed. What I have a problem (if that's the right word) with, is that most people on this website seem to be using typology as an insight into others minds. I don't believe there's evidence to say that someone whose usually extroverted won't become introverted in later life etc.

 

[Heresy]

Well again we're confusing MBTI with Jung. Cognitive Functions are Jung's theory and part of a much larger psychological picture. MBTI oversimplifies this down into a behavioral theory that is dubious at best in terms of accuracy.

Jung's theories are built around ideas like complexes, conscious/unconscious, repression, etc., are actually more mainstream. The MBTI and temperament theories like Kiersey are sort of narrower focuses on behavior, social roles, etc not psychology.

Ok, I'll make more of an effort to differentiate between them in the future although I'm still largely skeptical about both typology methods.

 

[Heresy]

The point:

And then quoting a lot of people with "impressive" credentials. Those people told us to eat 6-8 slices of bread each day, and now we got LCHF.

What is more beautiful? That there is a structure to the madness. Every little piece we can find.

The credentials don't make them right, but they make a contrast with Myers-Briggs at least who were simply observers and used very little scientific method in reaching their conclusions. Doctors get it wrong too, but they have at least grounded research on which to base their conclusion. But you're right, I'm not using that as proof, just to strengthen my argument.

Structure would be great, but I think if we come around to "explaining" human-nature, in will be a lot more complex than either Myers-Briggs or Carl Jung. In fact, I don't think we'll ever be able to explain it all without gross generalizations for a long, long time. You say structure, but at what cost? Before Copernicus the sun evolved around us, to propose otherwise was chaotic. I'd like structure, but only if it could be comprehensive and logical.

 

[mimesis]

This is 100% on the individual and how they approach it and why they want to use it. There is nothing wrong with typology if you actually abide by the logical principles behind it. However, what is dangerous, as you rightly pointed out, is typing BEHAVIOR and trying to change BEHAVIOR to fit whatever your random impression of a type is. This is what leads to rampant stereotyping, since there is no one way any type is supposed to come off as, but in order for this stuff to work behaviorally, such a method needs to be created, which is where the MBTI fails big time. Do some behavioral trends exist? In very vague ways, they quite likely do, but since they are vague, I'm not sure how people can really work with them as even behaviors - they would just correlate with particular cognitive function manifestations under the type dynamics of certain types. This is typing the persona, not the inherent personality, which Jung attempted to get down to with his original, non-MBTI behaviorist-tainted theory. So, Jung and MBTI are incompatible on the grounds that one is psychology and one isn't - it's behavioral science. I don't have to tell you which is which - it's pretty obvious. I highly doubt that they were based on "groundless speculation" if Jung actually worked with mental patients and made consistent observations about type dynamics and such from this empirical approach. But if anyone has an axe to grind with Jung, they're free to, but it's pointless anyhow, since Jung is long gone, and there are a lot of people out there who have modeled trends and are starting to look into the neurological trends behind type, where more trends have been found (e.g. Dario Nardi's brain research). Jung probably did the best he could in his own time to find empirical backing for his type theory, other than he was a bit resistant to simplifying his ideas. For all of the people here who do believe in type, then what does that make us? Delusional? It's on the individual whether or not they want to get into this stuff and apply it or not. No one's telling anyone what to do with it, except the MBTI states that it is unethical to force someone into a type or force someone to take a test without their permission.

Yes we are delusional. People have always looked around to see who they identified with, who they wanted to be like, or think they should behave like. Archetypes, stereotypes, idols, etc.

And this is a personality type grid that is pretty easy to grasp, and some kind of tool to explain and predict the world around them.

There's always people for who it becomes a kind of religious conviction. Who drink the kool-aid. Or the fundamentalists. The disciples. The liberals. The revisionists. Purists. Eye-openers. Saviours.

Also, it has appeared to me certain types seem to be present and other types I've hardly seen so far. Not many SJ's for instance. But correct me if I'm wrong. While they seem to be making up 45% of the population, according to stats.

And I don't see why behavioral science is different from psychology. In any way it's a simplification of what really happens in our mind. Whether you are psychometrist, psychofysiologist, psychopharmacist, (cognitive-)behaviorist, psychoanalyst, and neurofysiologist.

And who knows, I might try and take a different personality on me, see how it fits me. I notice the difference how people behave to me, when I wear certain clothes. Eventually, it can change your behaviour too.

 

[cranberryplains]

Actually there is evidence for cognitive functions. Dario Nardi studied the functions in relation to neuroscience and found plenty of evidence. In fact he even wrote a book on it, titled Neuroscience of Personality.

 

[mimesis]

Actually there is evidence for cognitive functions. Dario Nardi studied the functions in relation to neuroscience and found plenty of evidence. In fact he even wrote a book on it, titled Neuroscience of Personality.

But we allready new that, that cognitive functions (areas) existed. Like face recognition. language, etc. Nardi predicted which location would be active when testing different cognitive functions, like Big Five, etc. But as far as I know, the whole cognitive process is still kinda vague.

There's a lot more area's in the brain active. So, one word only or image can activate many different parts of the brain in a split second, while it's unclear what is coordinating all this.

On the other hand, there is the discovery of the mirror neurons, which is interesting in the light of extraverted feeling. Again, there allover the brain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10mirr.html?pagewanted=all

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

On the other hand, there is the discovery of the mirror neurons, which is interesting in the light of extraverted feeling.

Watch out. This truly has nothing to do with extraverted feeling or introverted feeling (which are about making value judgements, at their core in a conscious manner). This is feelings as in, encoding via emotionally-driven associations - so, psychological defense mechanisms (this is waaaay out of conscious control, since it's very very biological). This has nothing to do with making conscious value-judgements (e.g. good/evil, beautiful/ugly, etc.).

 

[snowbell]

Correct me if I'm wrong (still learning about all this) but I thought MBTI was meant to be use as a torch in the dark to light up things you may not have otherwise seen, but can't be used to tell you everything: ie it can show you what's there (for example a chest of drawers) and give an idea as to the dimensions of something but will not be fully conclusive in that to see further (the dirt, dimensions, etc) you need to evaluate closer, the "closer" in this instance being the actual person themselves.

 

[mimesis]

Watch out. This truly has nothing to do with extraverted feeling or introverted feeling (which are about making value judgements, at their core in a conscious manner). This is feelings as in, encoding via emotionally-driven associations - so, psychological defense mechanisms (this is waaaay out of conscious control, since it's very very biological). This has nothing to do with making conscious value-judgements (e.g. good/evil, beautiful/ugly, etc.).

Okay, I watch out. But that was just my point actually. You can't have it both ways, physical evidence of cognitive functions, but when it doesn't match say its very biological. That's confirmation bias. In the end, and in the beginning, it is a construct. The ego is also a construct. Intuition is a construct. The dichotomy of thinking and feeling, is a construct. A dichotomy is a construct.

 

[mimesis]

Watch out. This truly has nothing to do with extraverted feeling or introverted feeling (which are about making value judgements, at their core in a conscious manner). This is feelings as in, encoding via emotionally-driven associations - so, psychological defense mechanisms (this is waaaay out of conscious control, since it's very very biological). This has nothing to do with making conscious value-judgements (e.g. good/evil, beautiful/ugly, etc.).

By the way I wasn't referring to any of what you write in particular. Because it is so hard to apply to any of these functions, because they apply to all of them. You might say that with these mirror neurons, we judge by perceiving it. (rather than judge the perception).

What you mean is a system of values, as a constuct.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

Well no, I literally meant that mirror neurons have nothing to do with what the feeling functions are getting at (I'm aware that it's all a construct, but so what? That doesn't mean it can't stand on it's own as a construct.) I was talking about mirror neurons being largely biological and out of conscious control. The feeling functions might rationalize some mirror neuron responses, but the mirror neuron responses themselves are not a result of the feeling functions. Imitating people or yawning when they yawn has nothing to do with the feeling functions.

 

[mimesis]

Well no, I literally meant that mirror neurons have nothing to do with what the feeling functions are getting at (I'm aware that it's all a construct, but so what? That doesn't mean it can't stand on it's own as a construct.) I was talking about mirror neurons being largely biological and out of conscious control. The feeling functions might rationalize some mirror neuron responses, but the mirror neuron responses themselves are not a result of the feeling functions. Imitating people or yawning when they yawn has nothing to do with the feeling functions.

I see what you mean. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[AimfortheBrain]

I'm currently in destructive obsession mode. :wink:

 

[drumsensei29]

See I am a believer in mbti an cognitive functions and if you watch people closely and really understand cognitive fictions, it inherently clear that they do exist and there are strong correlations that can be made about people of the same "type" what is not clear is why our brains process information on the cognitive functions format and although I have a pretty strong understanding of the cognitive functions there is no crystal clear portrait painted on what each one of the cognitive functions actually means