Disscussion About Whether MBTI is True/False

[Consept]

15 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

Like I said, to learn about MBTI, because it doesn’t make sense to me (thread is named ‘discussion’ for a reason). I think people are believing in it without really understanding it.

But people just assume close minded bad intent, no one has provided any explanation or tried to clear my confusion. Maybe that says something? Idk
 

Would you say the same thing if people where discussing astrology or hand writing to determine personality? Or would make a post questioning if it is true?

Why i ask is because it seems youve come to a conclusion and you want to convince others of it, in a way you want to 'win', that may not be true but its just the impression i get. 

The way i see mbti, regardless of the science or whatever behind it, someone wrote some personality traits down that i related to and felt defined my personality quite well, which allowed me to then look at my personality more objectively and be aware of my tendencies and essentially be more honest with myself. Now does that mean everything was true? no, but it gives a general framework that i felt worked for me, the map is still not the territory, but a map is useful nonetheless. Of course dont take it as 100% accurate.    

[Yog]

MBTI won't predict what song will be played, but the instrument by which it is played.

[Akemrelax]

6 hours ago, Consept said:

Why i ask is because it seems youve come to a conclusion and you want to convince others of it, in a way you want to 'win', that may not be true but its just the impression i get. 

The way i see mbti, regardless of the science or whatever behind it, someone wrote some personality traits down that i related to and felt defined my personality quite well, which allowed me to then look at my personality more objectively and be aware of my tendencies and essentially be more honest with myself. Now does that mean everything was true? no, but it gives a general framework that i felt worked for me, the map is still not the territory, but a map is useful nonetheless. Of course dont take it as 100% accurate.    

Fitting the description doesn’t make it true. I’ve fit the description of my zodiac sign when I glance over the newspaper, but then I see that I also fit the description of all the other signs. Have you tried comparing your MBTI type with all the other types? Do you know the underlying cognitive functions of your type? Idk about you, but when I come across a concept I like to verify it to see if it’s true, there’s a lot of BS out there.

And hey I’m open minded to it. Right now I’m reading Jung’s Psychological Types and watching videos. 

You asked me a question now let me ask you one. Why do you have a resistance (or as it seems) to me questioning mbti? Consider this, maybe you like to gather new concepts but don’t like to determine if they’re true or not?

@Himanshu I’ll chrck them out as soon as I finish Psychological Types by Carl Jung. 

The youtube channel objective personality is good too.

[Consept]

43 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

Fitting the description doesn’t make it true. I’ve fit the description of my zodiac sign when I glance over the newspaper, but then I see that I also fit the description of all the other signs. Have you tried comparing your MBTI type with all the other types? Do you know the underlying cognitive functions of your type? Idk about you, but when I come across a concept I like to verify it to see if it’s true, there’s a lot of BS out there.

And hey I’m open minded to it. Right now I’m reading Jung’s Psychological Types and watching videos. 

You asked me a question now let me ask you one. Why do you have a resistance (or as it seems) to me questioning mbti? Consider this, maybe you like to gather new concepts but don’t like to determine if they’re true or not?

@Himanshu I’ll chrck them out as soon as I finish Psychological Types by Carl Jung. 

The youtube channel objective personality is good too.

Right but this isnt something thats definitely true(mbti), it is just a concept, its a map but thats about it. What would make it true for you? Ultimately youll find another map and think thats 'true', for example Jung, who ive read as well, is still just a map, maybe it works for more people, who knows. I think currently youre looking at why things arent true and that is important, but what i notice is that theres usually partial truth or something to take from everything. 

I'm not really resistant to you questioning it im more questioning the reasons behind your questioning, as its important to establish the intention behind such a question, and then also i felt you could benefit from considering it. I felt that you had already made your mind up on it and maybe wanted to confirm your findings which would then lead to battles in the thread which dont really lead anywhere. 

Jung is great for example but i could easily bring up many criticisms about him, such as lack of conducting experiments to demonstrate his ideas, theres many more -  https://www.europeanmedical.info/cognitive-therapy/the-unscientific-nature-of-jungs-psychology.html#:~:text=One of the earliest criticisms,as well as its content.&text=The charge that Jung's psychology,archetypes and the collective unconscious. https://classroom.synonym.com/weaknesses-carl-jungs-theory-8505105.html

We could then go back and forth about whether hes true or not. Ultimately you would only know by testing it yourself. So no i dont really like amassing concepts for the sake of it, but if something rings true to me and i test it experientially then thats good enough for me, also i dont really take it so seriously. But anyway its good what youre doing you should read and explore

[Carl-Richard]

For me, MBTI is kinda meh. Before I took the test, I thought I was INTP. I got INFP-A by a 1% margin on the feeling vs. thinking part. I also feel that I'm unable to know whether I'm answering according to what I aspire to be or believe is the right way to be rather than the way I actually am.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Ya know]

How do you guys deal with the questions - I feel energized when talking with other people? Whenever I read that I think sometimes I do, and other times I don't. It depends who i'm hanging out with and what the context is. It's too black and white to state whether I do or don't. 

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Ya know said:

How do you guys deal with the questions - I feel energized when talking with other people? Whenever I read that I think sometimes I do, and other times I don't. It depends who i'm hanging out with and what the context is. It's too black and white to state whether I do or don't. 

They should add another dimension called "averse to ambivalent phrasing of questions" 

[Ya know]

@Carl-Richard

Haha they should. I think of personality as something so fluid, constantly changing and evolving over time. Even proclivities such as a penchant for humour come and go based on a bunch of other factors - sleep, hunger level, etc..

it's hard to pin point who you are when its made up of so many biological, cultural and socio economic factors. Then rigidly clinging to something when it could be a combination of unforseen extrinsic factors that are subject to change. 

 

 

[Username]

MBTI is tests are very inaccurate because they are based on judging external actions. The problem is that for example INTPs and INTJs externally may appear similar but they have ZERO preferred cognitive functions in common. However you can determine someone's MBTI type by looking at the brain scan (check out Dario Nardi) - there is an empirical evidence.

MBTI is nothing more than just a test based on cognitive functions and Socionics. In order to learn about personality theory you need to spend at least five years learning theory and observing people. It is very deep and solid model. It can help you to explain why people behave and interact in a certain way. It will also help to understand mechanics of relationship dynamics.

Most people are just playing with MBTI so this is why they are getting low quality results.

E: Descriptions of a type have to be inaccurate because behavior depends on development and other factors. What is more important is interplay between cognitive functions.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Username

[SerpaeTetra]

You could look at each scale as 0-100. You may be in the 50ish range for a few traits that could lead to different test results. For example the most introverted person is 0 and extroverted is 100.  If you are on the border, the examples for that personality type aren't going to be as accurate for you as other people that have more defined traits.  You could look at the common traits that keep popping up and focus on those.

[Forestluv]

I look at it very differently. I look at it in in terms of how revealing and insightful it is. For example, the INP describes my personality patterns reality well. I a lot of it I already knew. For example, I already knew that I tend to be introverted and I don’t like structure and planning. This can be helpful information for a good career. As well, as I’ve looked deeper, more insights about my natural skills can be revealed as well as areas I could use improvement - if I choose.

For example, yesterday I read an article about introverted intuition and extroverted intuition. Both types are very good at seeing the big picture and making connections. I already knew that about myself, yet hadn’t made finer distinctions. The author described a distinction using an analogy of two different people walking in nature. The first person has introverted intuition. They notice bees flying around and they start making connections in a bigger picture. Yet they do so internally. They take in a few details in their actual surroundings and then create introvertedly. For example, we could see the bees interacting as a society and create imagery about how a bee society is similar to a human society. We could observe the hierarchical structure of bee society and compare/contrast that with human society. With introverted intuition, the mind only grabs a few of the details here and now. The mind is half here and half not here. In contrast, extroverted intuition is very externally-focused. It will notice the bees and start making connections. Yet rather making connections in abstract ideas, it will make connections here and now. It will see how the bees interact with the actual flowers here and now. How the bees interact with other insects in the flower. How flower pollen gets dispersed. How the wind interacts with the pollen. It makes connections between details here and now. 

I hadn’t considered these two forms of big picture thinking. I’m more oriented toward introverted intuition and just assumed that’s what big picture, systemic thinking is. Yet MBTI revealed to me that there is another form of big picture / connecting dots in an extroverted form. This is not my natural skill, yet is something I would like to develop. So over the past couple of days, when I am out in nature, I’ve been working to use my natural skill of big picture / connecting dots / integration to what is actually occurring here and now (and not “out there”). I need to work on the being present in actuality part. 

This is an example of how MBTI can be revealing and useful. All this talk about wether it’s scientific is a distraction, imo. 

[kag101]

I see it more as entertainment.

But lots of people take it way too damn seriously. Even companies rely too heavily on this test. It sounds scientific, but it is not.

[Akemrelax]

2 hours ago, SerpaeTetra said:

You could look at each scale as 0-100. You may be in the 50ish range for a few traits that could lead to different test results. For example the most introverted person is 0 and extroverted is 100.  If you are on the border, the examples for that personality type aren't going to be as accurate for you as other people that have more defined traits.  You could look at the common traits that keep popping up and focus on those.

My problem isn't so much with being in the middle. You're right I am in the middle, I got 51% for two of the letters, which prompted me to look more in depth.

I am saying that I don't understand what the underlying definitions are of the cognitive functions. For example, what's the difference between Ti (thinking + introverted) and Ni (intuitive + introverted). What's the different between Ti and Si? 

And every time I get a sense of the definition of these terms, the types are then described very differently then I had thought. Different sources say different things, different definitions. It's vague, sloppy work. 

For example, ISTP have these as their 1st and 2nd functions: 

Ti: deductive reasoning

Se: gathers data

So, somebody who has strong principles who then views the objects around them through those principles? Nope, it turns they kinesthetic learners, who are good with tools. 

ESTP has these:

Se: gathers data

Ti: deductive reasoning

ESTP are forthright, pragmatic, and straightforward.

Do you see how this is trippy to some people (like me) so vague and ambiguous? I can't make the connection between the cognitive functions and the type description. It's confusion. Although, as I learn about it I am beginning to see some connections.

[Akemrelax]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I look at it very differently. I look at it in in terms of how revealing and insightful it is. For example, the INP describes my personality patterns reality well. I a lot of it I already knew. For example, I already knew that I tend to be introverted and I don’t like structure and planning. This can be helpful information for a good career. As well, as I’ve looked deeper, more insights about my natural skills can be revealed as well as areas I could use improvement - if I choose.

For example, yesterday I read an article about introverted intuition and extroverted intuition. Both types are very good at seeing the big picture and making connections. I already knew that about myself, yet hadn’t made finer distinctions. The author described a distinction using an analogy of two different people walking in nature. The first person has introverted intuition. They notice bees flying around and they start making connections in a bigger picture. Yet they do so internally. They take in a few details in their actual surroundings and then create introvertedly. For example, we could see the bees interacting as a society and create imagery about how a bee society is similar to a human society. We could observe the hierarchical structure of bee society and compare/contrast that with human society. With introverted intuition, the mind only grabs a few of the details here and now. The mind is half here and half not here. In contrast, extroverted intuition is very externally-focused. It will notice the bees and start making connections. Yet rather making connections in abstract ideas, it will make connections here and now. It will see how the bees interact with the actual flowers here and now. How the bees interact with other insects in the flower. How flower pollen gets dispersed. How the wind interacts with the pollen. It makes connections between details here and now. 

I hadn’t considered these two forms of big picture thinking. I’m more oriented toward introverted intuition and just assumed that’s what big picture, systemic thinking is. Yet MBTI revealed to me that there is another form of big picture / connecting dots in an extroverted form. This is not my natural skill, yet is something I would like to develop. So over the past couple of days, when I am out in nature, I’ve been working to use my natural skill of big picture / connecting dots / integration to what is actually occurring here and now (and not “out there”). I need to work on the being present in actuality part. 

This is an example of how MBTI can be revealing and useful. All this talk about wether it’s scientific is a distraction, imo. 

My problem is not that it is scientific or not (although that's a discussion to be has as well) but more about the vagueness and I don't think the differences are that significant. Like since everyone uses all the functions, saying I use 'x' more really doesn't tell us much. 

You mentioned intuition. So what's the difference between Te (extraverted thinking), and Ne (extraverted intuition)? To me they are the same or have very little difference. And if someone who can do Te can easily do Ne imo, just like someone who can do inductive reasoning won't have that hard time doing deductive reasoning.

From what I know, intuition is described as seeing the possibilities and thinking is described as 'reasons'.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Akemrelax

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

My problem is not that it is scientific or not (although that's a discussion to be has as well) but more about the vagueness and I don't think the differences are that significant. Like since everyone uses all the functions, saying I use 'x' more really doesn't tell us much. 

I haven’t gone into great detail with it. I’ve mostly just looked at crude categories. I could see how things could start to blur together by creating lots of distinctions. I’m more interested in what resonates with me. For example, if I was typed as an INFP with a, b , c functions, yet it seemed like I resonated more with X, b , and Y functions, I would probably learn about those functions rather than trying to fit myself into a box. For example, when I was reading about introverted intuition vs. extroverted intuition I didn’t really care about which one I was “supposed” to be as an INFP. I was just interested in learning about the concepts and which one I resonate more with. 

I kinda read through the descriptions and put together what seems to best fit my patterns. 

3 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

You mentioned intuition. So what's the difference between Te (extraverted thinking), and Ne (extraverted intuition)? To me they are the same or have very little difference. And if someone who can do Te can easily do Ne imo, just like someone who can do inductive reasoning won't have that hard time doing deductive reasoning.

From what I know, intuition is described as seeing the possibilities and thinking is described as 'reasons'.

I haven’t read in-depth of Te and Ne. Based on my limited reading extroverted intuition is being able to observe things in the external environment and be able to make connections between details in that external environment. For example, sitting in a cafe and being able to connect various details of the cafe into a larger system. This isn’t my natural style of intuition. I would pick up on a few details of the cafe and then go into an internal imagination and create and inter-connected larger system, yet only a small portion of that imagined system would be details of what’s actually in the cafe. It’s almost like creating a fictional story that is “based on a true story”.  . . I’m not sure what the Te, extroverted thinking is about. I’m curious about reading more about it. . . I naturally have very prominent thinking and had assumed I was a “T”, yet I’m started to realize that the thinking is a tool for something else. Kinda like how I use math sometimes, yet I don’t do math for the sake of doing math - it’s a tool I use to create other stuff. 

[Akemrelax]

5 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I could see how things could start to blur together by creating lots of distinctions.

Yea. Not to mention different definitions everyone has.

MBTI has prompted me to think deeper about introversion and extroversion. 

Instead of describing it in terms of behaviour preference for social interactions, I and E can be described as a preference for looking at the world through a cultural/societal framework or differing from that framework (it’s not suppose to be a behaviourist model). Like an extraverted person, under this definition , would look at objects as ‘literally’ as possible. Meaning when they see a cat, they label it a cat and move on. An introvert would question the agreed upon ‘definition’, thus isolating them from others. 

Extroverts would, in practice, be confident because they’re not stopping to question things, sociable because they share societies framework, decisive, and competitive because they are comparing things based on society’s   framework/ruler.

Introverts would, in practice, be less social because they’re not buying societies labels, indecisive, curious, less competitive, and averse to taking in too much data because they want to process it.

It may seem that I’m being unfair to extroverts, but their traits really help communicate ideas, organize society, get stuff done, and survive. They have a lot of value. Introverted traits, in excess, could make you insane if your reality is too different than the rest.

It’s worth noting that when MBTI describes a trait as being ‘focused on outside objects’ it doesn’t mean it in the meditative, Buddhist-Zen sense but more so as giving things clear labels. Like looking at a cat as a cat and not cat = metaphor. Usually extraverted is described as “focusing on objects instead of self (thoughts)” and sensing as “being in the present”, it’s important to know they are not talking about it in the meditative sense but in the  “objective” labeling sense. 

[integral]

@Akemrelax https://www.objectivepersonality.com/home