Carl-Richard

Have you read the paper you're criticizing?

You asked me "how does it not add up when you apply statistical methods?", and "according to whom is it the leading model in personality theory?". Tell me, how exactly am I supposed to answer those questions without appealing to external factual information? Do you even care about the scientific method? How do you think quantitative social science should be done?

? That's a nice opinion. It's almost like you read straight from the Criticism section on the MBTI wiki ?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism There is a general consensus among the experts in the field (you know, scientists – people who do science). I've quoted David R. Buss' books in the past, but I'll try something different this time: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/people-are-strange/201910/five-big-reasons-embrace-the-big-five-personality-traits

Every little helps.

This made me think that I might've "blessed" my mother and brother and everybody else sitting on the airplane when I had my most impactful awakening.

Go take a walk. Feel the air, watch the sky. Pet a cat, talk to people, or just watch them. If at any point you feel less connected to any of these things because of "solipsism", you're on the wrong track. Drop that belief.

I don't eat ice cream, because I feel better when I don't eat it. I never get cravings for it either. Internal motivation is a strong force.

They're not mutually exclusive lol. They just don't correlate as much as the others. ...wait, did you think that all the sub-facets are each their own personality type? Please no, I'm going to lose my shit ?

I just mentioned a fun fact lol. If anything, my point is that JP is a bigger deal than most people think. Not many people know he used to be a scientist working on Big 5.

@Leo Gura That's all fine. It doesn't really affect the crux of my point as stated earlier, which is essentially just that humans are very different from machines. Biological evolution is just one lens of looking at that difference.

You'll miss the point if you only use fuzzy terms like "reality" and "seeing". He and his team has proven mathematically that evolution through natural selection makes it so that biological organisms only perceive their environment as far as it benefits their survival. This is just a rehashing of the idea that the world of sensations/perceptions is illusion/Maya, and that God/reality is transcendent and not limited to it (but that it's also both transcendent and immanent). It's perfectly compatible with non-dual mysticism.

Fun fact: Jordan Peterson (and some other person) co-authored that paper with DeYoung, which produced the 10 facets. The dude has made big historical contributions to personality psychology.

Actual correlation coefficients? No idea.

That is so besides the point.

E/I and Extroversion, and N/S and Openness are actually somewhat correlated (0.72 and 0.74). The problems of reliability and validity mostly arise when MBTI says that these things occur in specific dichotomies and combinations, i.e. 16 types.

If you want to be as sure as possible that you'll create human states of mind, the question would be if we could create an artificial cell that could sustain metabolism, homeostasis, and then self-replicate and pass on instructions to its descendants. In a sense, that would be the moment we discover abiogenesis, and we've just created new life. My guess is that such a cell would be more or less identical to a biological one. Natural selection isn't stupid. To then get to human states of mind, you'll just have to make another human.

My point in its simplest form is that taking one human feature (language) and projecting onto it a bunch of other features (sentience) is problematic. I've simply given a detailed account of that. So I would have the same problem with projecting human states of mind onto a hyper-intelligent alien if it somehow fell outside of the domain of biological life (metabolism) or was extremely structurally or behaviorally dissimilar. That said, again, this is only about the parsimony of logical inferences, not about reality as it actually is.

Via. natural selection?

@zurew You can't "test" whether a rock actually has conscious inner life (sentience) either, but you can make good inferences for why it doesn't, which is what I did. That said, why sentience arose at all is a mystery, but again, from what we can observe and infer from those observations, it has to do with biology. More specifically, there is something more to any current widely accepted cases of sentience than pure information processing. I tried to lay out examples: evolutionary drives creating sensory organs, perceptual structures, internal representations, survival-salient experiences (e.g. pleasure and pain, emotions), which then evolves into higher-cognition (meta-consciousness, language, sequential reasoning). Just because you can simulate things like sequential reasoning and complex language in another medium, does not mean that you just retroactively created the infinitely complex evolutionary causal chain that makes up the totality of the human mind and its richness of experiences. Humans don't merely talk or reason: they have emotions, feelings and perceptions that are not reducible to those things. In fact, human language and reasoning is embedded in these lower structures (both evolutionarily and functionally). In other words, these lower forms of sentience come before complex information processing (language and reasoning) ever occurs. Therefore, to say "this machine talks like a human = this machine thinks and feels like a human" is an absurd inference.

The Turing test is neither about consciousness (qualities of experience), sentience (pain or pleasure), or meta-consciousness (reflective self-awareness). By these definitions: consciousness, whether you're an idealist or materialist, either arises outside or inside living organisms, and as an isolated concept, it tells you nothing about complexity of behavior. A dolphin behind a computer doesn't pass the Turing test, but you would be stupid to think it wasn't sentient. Mirror self-recognition tests could indicate a basic form of meta-consciousness, and dolphins definitely display those behaviors, while a computer doesn't, or maybe you could simulate that as well. However, the people who've mentioned the Chinese room experiment and the distinction between a real flower and a plastic flower make an important point: simulations are not the real thing. Simulating one type of behavior from a human does not mean you've created a human. Since you're a human and you experience qualities, pain and pleasure, and reflective self-awareness, it's a safe inference that other things like you (other humans) do as well. Computers are not like you in almost every way. To elaborate on sentience: pain and pleasure is just a specific case of a so-called "conscious inner life"; what Bernardo Kastrup calls a "dissociated alter", or what Donald Hoffman calls "the Dashboard", and it's all linked to living organisms. Living organisms evolved sensory organs and perceptual structures that produce an internal representation of the "outside world" that maximizes evolutionary fitness, and this is linked to positive and negative conscious experiences like pain and pleasure, emotions etc., i.e. experiences which reflect an evolutionary impetus and history. Rocks don't have that, computers don't have that; because these things didn't evolve. It's also true that higher-order mental functions (like meta-consciousness and sequential reasoning) in humans evolved from these lower structures. If you simulate only the higher but not the lower (as with these AI robots), you're missing a huge piece of the cake. Information processing does not make an organism.

It's the leading model in personality theory, so by definition, it isn't. If you had actually read about how the model was made, you would think it was pretty genius (the Lexical hypothesis). I think the Lexical hypothesis is a big reason why the self-assessment tests are so accurate, because the 5 traits were actually found using data from self-assessment tests.

Things start to get a little fuzzy when you start blending spirituality, hermeneutics and dry quantitative science. The fact of the matter is that MBTI presents itself as a rigorously scientific personality model with all the modern chops of quantitative measurements, but it simply isn't that. It's a very specific thing I'm saying. It's true that science often progresses through things like sheer luck or happenstance (like suddenly discovering the therapeutic potential of meditation), things that have really nothing to do with structured methodology, but this still doesn't devalue the very way which we evaluate our current scientific models (which is what the criteria around reliability and validity of measurement instruments in the quantitative social sciences are about). When I say that a model is outdated, it has to have been through the scientific machinery first and then deemed insufficient. That doesn't apply to meditation, as it was just recently discovered by science and then given a warm embrace.

The official MBTI assessment on the Myers and Briggs website (the one you have to pay for, not the quack knock-offs), has among other things poor reliability and validity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism This is how you do quantitative social science: you take a concept or model, and you create a standardized measurement for it (a.k.a "operationalization"), like a self-assessment test. This is the bottom line of modern personality theory. If you've gone through the effort of creating such a measurement (which MBTI has), and it doesn't hold up, then it's by definition pseudoscience. You bringing up examples that "make logical sense" doesn't change that fact, because again, it's an appeal to postulated explanatory power, not standards of empirical research.

That which is considered pseudoscience today could revolutionize science tomorrow. However, you're not going to do that by simply clinging to an outdated 100 year old model, unless you're able to develop it.

What ? Even under an idealistic ontology, you would still distinguish between sentience and non-sentience. A rock under idealism is made out of consciousness, but it's not sentient (experiencing pain or pleasure), as that requires at least sensory organs, which are survival tools given to animals.