Cognitive functions

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, thisintegrated said:

When in doubt, everyone will guess NTP.  So the fact INFJ votes won means it wasn't a fluke.  No one's gonna guess INFJ on someone with strong NTP traits  unless they're certain.

 

Since we can account for why 2nd and 3rd positions are NTPs, we can rule them out.

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  

[thisintegrated]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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  

You still think those MBTI votes are completely random and there's no pattern to them?

Think careful about your answer or you'll fuck up greatly..

Edited April 17, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, thisintegrated said:

You still think those MBTI votes are completely random and there's no pattern to them?

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.

[thisintegrated]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

You're avoiding the question as you know there is definitely a pattern and it's not random.  You just don't want to admit it.

 

I have a suggestion.  Just try to identify if someone is I/E, S/N, and T/F.

Just for fun, entertain this idea, even if it seems silly to you.  See if you can find any pattern.

 

Do this with any person you come across.  It might be educational.  If it's all BS, then it's all BS.  No harm done.

Within a few days/weeks of doing this properly, you may find you have a near 100% accuracy rate.

If it's a fictional character or a celebrity, you can confirm on the personality database site.

Edited April 17, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, thisintegrated said:

You're avoiding the question as you know there is definitely a pattern and it's not random.  You just don't want to admit it.

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.

[thisintegrated]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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 hope you've not been basing your arguments off ..comments.

For every 100 voters there's a commenter with strong emotions.  Don't pay them much attention unless there's no consensus in the polls.

Most disagreements come from using the 4 letters vs the functions.  They don't always agree.  xxxP usually means "less strict, more relaxed, less serious", but the functions say "P means nothing, look at the functions".

 

The overwhelming majority of personalities do have a clear consensus.  The ramblings of people in the comments are irrelevant.

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I have a suggestion.  Just try to identify if someone is I/E, S/N, and T/F.

Just for fun, entertain this idea, even if it seems silly to you.  See if you can find any pattern.

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 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

For every 100 voters there's a commenter with strong emotions.  Don't pay them much attention unless there's no consensus in the polls.

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

[thisintegrated]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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 

Well there, you've proved to yourself MBTI works and is 100% accurate as long  you know the system and have enough data on a person.  

 

Working out the first 3 letters is easy AF, usually.

Then guess P or J.

Then confirm using functions.

Edited April 17, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Carl-Richard Asking "if MBTI is reliable" is like asking if language is reliable--since all models are signifiers, and this one happens to function exactly how ordinary language does by labelling real phenomena (different behavioral patterns as psychological tendencies) and then forming them into a web of interrelations. Then once this web is input into the dialogue, the readers of it will notice that it, as a signifier, was chosen to match the signified for certain reasons. This matching process of what is being referred to having a correlate with the language/signifier/model/replicative web/mirror can be accurate at times or slightly inaccurate. You have to understand how that pattern works to determine usefulness. But, it can never ever, in the vast majority of circumstances, be entirely useless. If people are saying the sky is blue and the fields are verdantly brilliant, that is a good sign that the sky actually is blue and the fields green. It does not make any sense to say that the act of language and the words "blue" and "green" have "no basis in reality" and are "pseudoscientific." MBTI labels, creates words for, real things and communicates those ideas--as a real correlation with the external existences it invokes.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, thisintegrated said:

Well there, you've proved to yourself MBTI works and is 100% accurate as long  you know the system and have enough data on a person.  

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

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@Carl-Richard Asking "if MBTI is reliable" is like asking if language is reliable

MBTI has a test. This test is what is unreliable.

 

On 16.4.2022 at 8:09 PM, Carl-Richard said:

On 16.4.2022 at 7:47 PM, no_name said:

How is depression or introversion scientifically valid? 

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.

 

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

16 hours ago, no_name said:

@Carl-Richard so what I was trying to say is that cognitive functions are also merely descriptions.

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?

 

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@Carl-Richard Asking "if MBTI is reliable" is like asking if language is reliable--since all models are signifiers, and this one happens to function exactly how ordinary language does by labelling real phenomena (different behavioral patterns as psychological tendencies) and then forming them into a web of interrelations. Then once this web is input into the dialogue, the readers of it will notice that it, as a signifier, was chosen to match the signified for certain reasons. This matching process of what is being referred to having a correlate with the language/signifier/model/replicative web/mirror can be accurate at times or slightly inaccurate. You have to understand how that pattern works to determine usefulness. But, it can never ever, in the vast majority of circumstances, be entirely useless. If people are saying the sky is blue and the fields are verdantly brilliant, that is a good sign that the sky actually is blue and the fields green. It does not make any sense to say that the act of language and the words "blue" and "green" have "no basis in reality" and are "pseudoscientific." MBTI labels, creates words for, real things and communicates those ideas--as a real correlation with the external existences it invokes.

Exactly, omg.  We have no other words for Ti, or Fe, etc.  so that's what we should use.  There's nothing else.  Ti describes a real phenomenon, what else could we call it?

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Exactly, omg.  We have no other words for Ti, or Fe, etc.  so that's what we should use.  There's nothing else.  Ti describes a real phenomenon, what else could we call it?

I have nothing against the cognitive functions as standalone descriptions. This was mentioned in my first post on this thread. I'm critical of the typology aspect.

[thisintegrated]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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

Honestly, your criticism of MBTI is disproportional to your level of understanding.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Honestly, your criticism of MBTI is disproportional to your level of understanding.

You sure? if I were to take your previous post as something more than just virtue signalling, you seem to not understand the basic distinction between criticizing cognitive functions and typology (I'm only doing the latter).

[AtheisticNonduality]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

MBTI has a test. This test is what is unreliable.

There is also a "test" in the human brain that determines if the sky is blue or not. Blueness has qualifiers in order for it to necessitate the label blue (for example, it has to have the proper sensory effect as the "test," then have the proper registering of the post-sensation, and then have linguistic understanding/modeling/formalization). This is not any different than an MBTI test. Asking if an apple is red is like asking if a person is introverted. It is both using qualifications to create a label.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, AtheisticNonduality said:

"test" in the human brain

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about a sheet of paper.

[thisintegrated]

 

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about a sheet of paper.

It's the same thing

[thisintegrated]

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I have nothing against the cognitive functions as standalone descriptions. This was mentioned in my first post on this thread. I'm critical of the typology aspect.

This is the most annoying this about Te/Ni users (which is why I'm shocked/skeptical @AtheisticNonduality is an INTJ).  They're seemingly incapable of using inductive reasoning.

I can just see a pattern, see the potential, explore it, and put a percentage point on its usefulness.

Te/Ni users though.. they don't care about patterns or potential.  There must be a clear, specific reason to believe something, and then facts are used as confirmation.

If I hadn't seen the potential in MBTI, I would've never studied it.  Most Te/Ni users though will never discover MBTI, as they require either concrete proof beforehand, or they have to come up with the concept of "cognitive model" and its potential uses themselves, and then stumble upon MBTI as a confirmation of their idea (this is not common scenario).

 

As an ENTP, it doesn't matter if it's BS.  I see potential, and it will lead to something education/good one way or another.  And because I saw potential, I've stayed with it long enough to understand its value and how to make use of it.  Turns out it was not BS.

Edited April 17, 2022 by thisintegrated