All the MBTI stereotypes are accurate??

[thisintegrated]

27 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I just think that studying something for decades makes it more likely that you've gone through whatever phases of learning that is supposedly mandatory for that subject, and that one or two PhDs is just a measurement of that, kinda like how a personality test is a measurement of personality.

Nice try.  You won't fool me, Te user??

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Nice try.  You won't fool me, Te user??

"Hehe your argument is invalid cuz MBTI".

46 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It seems like a cult almost

 

[Loba]

^  You def. don't seem like an infp AT ALL.

Your Te is too developed, you're like an encyclopedia as well.
 

[thisintegrated]

49 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Hehe your argument is invalid cuz MBTI".

lol

[thisintegrated]

Just now, Loba said:

^  You def. don't seem like an infp AT ALL.

Your Te is too developed, you're like an encyclopedia as well.
 

Yep, I keep saying it but he won't accept it.  Carl's an ENFP.

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, Loba said:

^  You def. don't seem like an infp AT ALL.

Your Te is too developed, you're like an encyclopedia as well.
 

 

43 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Yep, I keep saying it but he won't accept it.  Carl's an ENFP.

But I reject your whole system ? For instance, you type Bernardo Kastrup as an ENTP (no Te), but he has read more than all of us ever will combined, and he actively uses external sources like "Jung said this..." and "top empirical journals" and "it just doesn't seem to follow the evidence". This whole typing business is a puzzle game, a hobby, and a cult, because nobody talks about it unless you're completely bought into it.

[AtheisticNonduality]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But I reject your whole system ?

No one is smart enough to be 100% wrong, as Ken Wilber would say.

[thisintegrated]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But I reject your whole system ? For instance, you type Bernardo Kastrup as an ENTP (no Te), but he has read more than all of us every will combined, and he actively uses external sources like "Jung said this..." and "top empirical journals" and "it just doesn't seem to follow the evidence". This whole typing business is a puzzle game, a hobby, and a cult, because nobody talks about it unless you're completely bought into it.

Bernard seems like an ENTP at first glance, but it's really just a guess.  ENTPs are both Ti and Te users, we just have a preference for Ti.  Sometimes the most logical (Ti) thing to do is to defer to an expert (Te), especially if your goal is convince others, which may include people of all types.

A prepared speech will be tailored to appeal to the masses, and a well developed Ti will know how to do this.

Edited May 28, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

On 28.5.2022 at 3:39 AM, thisintegrated said:

Bernard seems like an ENTP at first glance, but it's really just a guess.  ENTPs are both Ti and Te users, we just have a preference for Ti.  Sometimes the most logical (Ti) thing to do is to defer to an expert (Te), especially if your goal is convince others, which may include people of all types.

A prepared speech will be tailored to appeal to the masses, and a well developed Ti will know how to do this.

That further weakens the reasoning behind calling it personality types, because it starts to look more like a quantitative difference than a qualitative difference. I would be perfectly fine with treating cognitive functions as traits that all people have to varying degrees, and then go by a case-by-case basis, instead of subjecting yourself to the myriad of cognitive biases that are naturally associated with working with neatly defined categories such as "types".

I just watched Jordan Peterson's quite embarrasing conversation (for him) with Richard Dawkins, but he made a good point in there: when looking at a large data set, there exists a huge amount of possible correlations and interpretations. The conundrum is: by which mechanism do you pick out the data you want to work with? That is a genuine problem for even the most statistically rigorous types of science.

Now, to me, MBTI typing is when you take a virtually infinitely large and ambigiously defined data set (whatever behavior of the subject you're able to perceive), and while using no structured methodology whatsoever (self-admittedly), you project whatever intuitively derived conclusion you think is relevant for your running hypothesis for a particular type (prone to selection/confirmation bias), all while under the completely unconstrained influence of your egoic drives and the general flaws of the human mind (emotional states and attachments, faulty memories and reasoning, cognitive biases etc.).

I'm immensely turned off by this process, and the times you will catch me engaging in it is because it's frankly addicting. You can avoid a large chunk of these problems by just abolishing the typology structure all together and let each cognitive function (maybe pair) stand on their own in principle, but even then, without any statistical methods, it's still just kind of a hobby. 

Anyways, I think I've said this a couple of times already, and it's not going to change anything, so I think I'll stop criticizing MBTI for a while. Just know that all this harsh critique is just me externalizing how I criticize myself when I'm trying to type somebody, and that when I see somebody like yourself who is apparently taking a more carefree approach, it triggers that process within me

[Gesundheit2]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That further weakens the reasoning behind calling it personality types, because it starts to look more like a quantitative difference than a qualitative difference. I would be perfectly fine with treating cognitive functions as traits that all people have to varying degrees, and then go by a case-by-case basis, instead of subjecting yourself to the myriad of cognitive biases that are naturally associated with working with neatly defined categories such as "types".

I just watched Jordan Peterson's quite embarrasing conversation (for him) with Richard Dawkins, but he made a good point in there: when looking at a large data set, there exists a huge amount of possible correlations and interpretations. The conundrum is: by which mechanism do you pick out the data you want to work with? That is a genuine problem for even the most statistically rigorous types of science.

Now, to me, MBTI typing is when you take a virtually infinitely large and ambigiously defined data set (whatever behavior of the subject you're able to perceive), and while using no structured methodology whatsoever (self-admittedly), you project whatever intuitively derived conclusion you think is relevant for your running hypothesis for a particular type (prone to selection/confirmation bias), all while under the completely unconstrained influence of your egoic drives and the general flaws of the human mind (emotional states and attachments, faulty memories and reasoning, cognitive biases etc.).

I'm immensely turned off by this process, and the times you will catch me engaging in it is because it's frankly addicting. You can avoid a large chunk of these problems by just abolishing the typology structure all together and let each cognitive function (maybe pair) stand on their own in principle, but even then, without any statistical methods, it's still just kind of a hobby. 

Anyways, I think I've said this a couple of times already, and it's not going to change anything, so I think I'll stop criticizing MBTI for a while. Just know that all this harsh critique is just me externalizing how I criticize myself when I'm trying to type somebody, and that when I see somebody like yourself who is apparently taking a more carefree approach, it triggers that process within me

?

I'll just call 911 ??

I like how articulate this post is and the angle you chose to make the critique from. Seriously, it is mind-blowing! ?

Personally, I was never able to type myself into any specific personality type. And almost every time I do a test, I get a different result. Now, it makes sense why.

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I just watched Jordan Peterson's quite embarrasing conversation (for him) with Richard Dawkins, but he made a good point in there: when looking at a large data set, there exists a huge amount of possible correlations and interpretations. The conundrum is: by which mechanism do you pick out the data you want to work with? That is a genuine problem for even the most statistically rigorous types of science.

This is interesting. There are a lot of talks and debates when a person says "the raw data suggest x and y" when in reality the raw data doesn't suggest anything in an of itself, unless you try to make sense of it somehow. The process you use to make sense of the data will determine everything. ( and here i didn't even talk about from where and how do you collect that raw data )

You are totally right. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by zurew

[integral]

✨32 subtypes of INFJ✨

Edited May 29, 2022 by integral

[Gesundheit2]

47 minutes ago, zurew said:

This is interesting. There are a lot of talks and debates when a person says "the raw data suggest x and y" when in reality the raw data doesn't suggest anything in an of itself, unless you try to make sense of it somehow. The process you use to make sense of the data will determine everything. ( and here i didn't even talk about from where and how do you collect that raw data )

You are totally right. 

That's not quite the point, though.

It's one thing to say that the raw data doesn't suggest one thing in particular. And it's another thing entirely to say or assume that all interpretations are at the same level of validity or "weight". The subjective factor does not automatically dissolve the validity or value of raw data, because the objective factor is still there.

The data is data for a reason, and it can't be manipulated or misinterpreted except to a certain degree. The data points to actual happenings in the real world, and it's unbiased within/under certain predefined conditions. It can be reproduced and demonstrated to be consistent under those conditions.

It's not like the postmodernist view on language. These are two different things. What you said applies perfectly to language, but very little to scientific data.

Now, the data pertaining to personality types and psychology in general does not fit in either categories, and imo it's like in the middle somewhere on the spectrum between fluidity/subjectivity and validity/objectivity. There are also known psychological factors that might be involved that might skew the data, such as self-fulfilling prophecies and others, let alone other unknown factors that we still have no clue about. It's almost impossible to define psychology within one human, never mind 7 billion, there's just so much complexity there. So it is especially tricky in this area, but otherwise, it's not really. In most other areas, it's often easy to isolate the thing you wish to study and make experiments in regards to, so that makes collecting data a very objective process, and that's exactly why science is so powerful.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

And it's another thing entirely to say or assume that all interpretations are at the same level of validity or "weight". The subjective factor does not automatically dissolve the validity or value of raw data, because the objective factor is still there.

There is no such thing as objective factor in an of itself. The 'objective factor' only comes when we start to use some kind of a methodology to make sense of that data. Also, i didn't assume that all interpretations are at the same level. I made a point, that some people use that tactic in debates to say that the raw data says this and that, which is incorrect.

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

So it is especially tricky in this area, but otherwise, it's not really. In most other areas, it's often easy to isolate the thing you wish to study and make experiments in regards to, so that makes collecting data a very objective process, and that's exactly why science is so powerful.

Data collecting is one thing, but making sense of that data, or creating your interpretation of that data is different. Depending on how manipulative one wants to be about it , if there is a big enough data-set you can make multiple different kind of narratives (which are all factually correct based on the data-set) and interpretations about it, because you can cherrypick from it, exclude variables from it etcetc.

For instance,if you wanted to make an argument about a drug being safe. You could use a big data-set you would lets say  focus on 4 different kind of variables and ignore all the other ones purposefully. You could make an argument that based on those 4 variables the drug is 100% safe and it would be factually correct, because you used a raw dataset, but at the same time misleading, because you excluded things from your estimation. In this instance, you could be the one , who would purposefully only create a data-set and collect data which includes only those 4 variables ,so it is impossible to make a counter argument about your drug, using your own data-set.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by zurew

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

There is no such thing as objective factor in an of itself. The 'objective factor' only comes when we start to use some kind of a methodology to make sense of that data.

That might be true, or not. It doesn't matter much in my opinion, because it seems more like a labeling problem than a practical one.

Quote

Also, i didn't assume that all interpretations are at the same level. I made a point, that some people use that tactic in debates to say that the raw data says this and that, which is incorrect.

It depends on the kind of data they're talking about. If they're talking about statistics, then chances are they're right but being slick with their choice of words. Otherwise, the data mostly suggests rather than "say" anything, but this latter type has to do more with the body of the research and not much with the statistics, so normies don't usually get exposed to this kind of information.

For example, let's say 90% of tobacco smokers develop lung cancer at some point in their life. That's data based on reliable statistics. You can play around with how you state and share this data. You can say that smoking kills, or that many people don't get cancer despite being heavy smokers. Notice how vastly different it hits in either statements, even though technically they're both true. So, it's not the data itself that is corrupt, but how some people are able to twist it with their use of language, and how naive/uninformed the recipients might be. Notice also, that researchers do not say that tobacco causes lung cancer or that the data says so. They say that the data shows a correlation between these two findings, which suggests a certain kind causality (it's called a risk factor), which is information that can be peer-reviewed and further studied/tested, then published as theories or statistics, and ultimately used for improving our lives.

Quote

Data collecting is one thing, but making sense of that data, or creating your interpretation of that data is different. Depending on how manipulative one wants to be about it , if there is a big enough data-set you can make multiple different kind of narratives (which are all factually correct based on the data-set) and interpretations about it, because you can cherrypick from it, exclude variables from it etcetc.

For instance,if you wanted to make an argument about a drug being safe. You could use a big data-set you would lets say  focus on 4 different kind of variables and ignore all the other ones purposefully. You could make an argument that based on those 4 variables the drug is 100% safe and it would be factually correct, because you used a raw dataset, but at the same time misleading, because you excluded things from your estimation. In this instance, you could be the one , who would purposefully only create a data-set and collect data which includes only those 4 variables ,so it is impossible to make a counter argument about your drug, using your own data-set.

It's not up to me or any normie to claim anything about any drug. There are professionals with integrity and a reputation to uphold that are careful not to make such mistakes. And there's a community that peer-reviews everything before it is published. Science isn't one person that creates a narrative, controls, and maintains it. Science is a complex structure that works exactly on preventing such things from happening.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[zurew]

29 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

And there's a community that peer-reviews everything before it is published. Science isn't one person that creates a narrative, controls, and maintains it. Science is a complex structure that works exactly on preventing such things from happening.

Yeah i agree with you. I just pointed out that sometimes it can be misleading, especially when two layman having a debate and both of them relating to the same dataset and ignoring the conclusion of that data-set and trying to make their own interpretation of it just to be able to make an argument.

29 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

So, it's not the data itself that is corrupt, but how some people are able to twist it with their use of language, and how naive/uninformed the recipients might be

Just to be clear, i don't think we disagree, i am not saying that the data itself is incorrect, but the interpretation of it could be incorrect or misleading when some layman try to do the interpretation him/herself alone (I am not talking about studies, but only raw data where there isn't any conclusion provided from anyone). When we are talking about peer-reviewed studies as a layman it would be really dumb for me to try to come to a different consclusion compared to what a paper/study says.

 

30 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

For example, let's say 90% of tobacco smokers develop lung cancer at some point in their life. That's data based on reliable statistics.

In my vocab i would say thats not raw data, but thats a conclusion from a study where they collected a set of variables , used a certain method and then they concluded what you just wrote above. 

Quote

Raw data (sometimes called source data, atomic data or primary data) is data that has not been processed for use

In this instance, lets say the raw data would be a dataset about people who smoke tobacco and about people who don't smoke tobacco and thats it ( lets say there would be 4 different kind of health variable included too in that raw data). Now to come to the '90% of tobacco smokers develop lung cancer at some point in their life' that would be called a conclusion and the raw data would have to be processed to come to that consclusion. So you would have to use a method to evaluate that raw data to come to your conclusion.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by zurew

[Gesundheit2]

@zurew I guess that's partially why Leo says debating pointless and a waste of time. Debaters are often ideological, and so the're inherently biased. At least at tier one, that is.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I guess that's partially why Leo says debating pointless and a waste of time. Debaters are often ideological, and so the're inherently biased. At least at tier one, that is.

I think thats true, if we are only debating if we want the other party to change their position. Lets say if we wanted to have a debate for other reasons too like trying to improve our knowledge about a certain topic and hoping to hear good arguments from the other side, so we can deepen our understanding that could be also a point to have a debate.

Of course, we have a debate assuming that the other party is good faith, and  maybe able to change his position, but yeah Leo is right that in the vast majority of the cases, debates are about winning and about dick measuring.

[Gesundheit2]

@zurew Absolutely!

On a different note, the MBTI system and others that try to type/categorize human consciousness, like the Enneagram, etc. remind me of the zodiac signs. They're like the modern, sophisticated, smarter, and allegedly scientific version of that old naive mythological nonsense. It's almost like stage Green mythology vs. stage Purple mythology. And basically any criticism of Purple's myths apply here as well, but Greens are still biased and don't have enough self-awareness to see this.

[Zeroguy]

@Gesundheit2 Same can be said for SD you are using now.Theory is just theory.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Zeroguy