Carl-Richard

MBTI has a test. This test is what is unreliable. They're merely descriptions that have to be operationalized using some alternative measurement (e.g. a questionnaire/test, physiological measurements, brain activity etc.) in order to become "empirically useful" (predicting behaviors etc.). You do this by seeing if these measurements correlate with the behaviors you want to investigate (e.g. "does depression correlate with lower work performance?" "Depression" can be represented by say a measurement like serotonin levels in the brain. These measurements are often crude and limited, but at least they allow you to find correlations that can help predict future behaviors. That's also my view, but this changes when you start talking about typology (and claims about the frequency one uses the functions). Once you start talking about correlations to behavior (and correlating the functions with each other), you're in the realm of science. What are the justifications for combining these functions into types?

No I've proved to myself that I guessed two people's types correctly.

How do I know I'm not talking to one right now?

I predicted both my mom and my brother's MBTI test results accurately (ESFJ vs. ISTP). On the other hand, one of my more memorable failed guesses was Freddie Mercury as INFP when he was ESFP

We agree that there exists patterns (plural), but we disagree which patterns to give the most weight. The most striking pattern I see is that people are generally confused about which type certain celebrities are, and that defending any claim in that arena requires inviting severely tangential statistics, anecdotes and dodgy polling websites into the discussion. Our discussion here is just a microcosm of what I'm talking about: look at all the different well-reasoned viewpoints in the comment section of these profiles.

I think it's hard to make the case that someone can be one personality type or that there exists such a thing as personality types in the first place.

I think the meta-point that I'm starting to get here is that it's possible to make seemingly convincing arguments for both sides (or two different sets of types; NiSe vs. NeSi) ad infinitum, and that's maybe an additional problem to the already existing problem of there being such a split in the first place. We can probably just keep piling up arguments and stats like this forever as if we have an explanation for everything, and that's one alarm bell in the direction of pseudoscience In the words of the upvoted commenter "BIELO", "this page is a confusion", and I doubt we've come any closer to settling that fact in the last dozen posts

OK, so for Jordan, 55.97% have agreed that he is NeSi and not NiSe ("people have agreed on every function"). That's significant, don't you think?

Which one is it? Destiny is 50/50 INTP and ENTP. Is that consensus in your eyes?

Proof that NeSi > NiSe

If we're limiting ourselves to intuitives (which seems most relevant), it's ENTP, INTP, INFJ, ENFJ. (Sensors: ISFJ, ESFJ, ESTP, ISTP). I gotta say it's interesting how ENTP and INTP both are TiFe + NeSi and make up 55.97% of the votes

Speaking of statistics, did you misspeak earlier or is this wrong?: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/4spc12/population_by_cognitive_functions/ Seems to be the opposite of what you said.

I know. Same with your statistic about "Ni and Se are twice as likely as Ne and Si." Why not ENTP?

Maybe, but if we can pull and combine random statistics like that, isn't INFJ the least common type? INFJ 1.5% of population and ENTP 3.2% of population according to one source, meaning ENTP is twice as likely. What weighs more in this case? Your statistics or my statistics? Btw, I just saw a comment on JP's page: "BIELO: This page is a confusion" (4 upvotes)

I guess this kind of thinking works for democratic elections, but for "scientific truths", not so much. Let's say we polled "Is Jordan Peterson an INFJ?" Yes: 44.03% No: 55.97% You can only be one type, right? If it's 55.97% in favor for "not that type", then that's a problem.

50% is not "consensus". Beethoven has 72.87% on top voted type. That's more like consensus. ~75% is a good figure (Oldschool Runescape uses it as the passing limit for their polls for newly suggested game content ).

The first two people that came to mind were Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. https://www.personality-database.com/profile/11583/sam-harris-western-philosophy-mbti-personality-type https://www.personality-database.com/profile/11071/jordan-peterson-psychology-neuroscience-mbti-personality-type Jordan Peterson has 1919 votes, and the top voted type has only 845 votes (44.03%). Sam Harris has 281 votes, and the top voted type has 142 votes (50.53%).

Many profiles I've seen are pretty divided.

Classic.

By past/future, you mean thinking. By experiencing, you mean perceiving. Experience is beyond all that.

That's also my view, but this changes when you start talking about typology (and claims about the frequency one uses the functions). Once you start talking about correlations to behavior (and correlating the functions with each other), you're in the realm of science. What are the justifications for combining these functions into types?

Got it.

Are we not talking to other people? ? (see what I did there? ?) I was making an analogy to something familar and not too far-fetched. Baby steps. Somebody else can drop the nukes

Does my body have a surface? That is the border between inside and outside that most people are used to. Empathy extends this boundary. Awakening expands the boundary to infinity.

I'm trying to break through the idea that our body-minds are isolated vehicles that contain experience on the inside and that the outside world is dead and inert. The assumption that the outside is dead and the inside is alive and that only this body-mind contains this aliveness, is a major cause for this confusion. Empathy is the experience of breaking through some of this apparent separation.