All the MBTI stereotypes are accurate??

[Gesundheit2]

@Zeroguy Don't criticize SD. My whole identity and worldview depends on it ???

[Zeroguy]

Just now, Gesundheit2 said:

@Zeroguy Don't criticize SD. My whole identity and worldview depends on it ???

The less touchy subject than that you maybe are not God but just some random dude from the middle east(paradise)?

You made me question validity of SD and how it may hurt 90% of forum users here.

[Gesundheit2]

@Zeroguy Banned.

[Zeroguy]

2 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Zeroguy Banned.

 

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Zeroguy said:

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

Looking at the empirical evidence (which is tainted by WEIRD bias; "Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic"), SD has doubtful intercultural validity, certainly not cross-cultural. At least it has some empirical evidence though ?, considering it lines up with world history in broad strokes and correlates with other WEIRD stage theories (Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Kegan etc.).

However, it's practically impossible to create a perfectly universal theory of human development (independent of contextual factors, i.e. culture, socioeconomics etc.) that isn't almost only descriptive (like Sameroff's transactional theory). Predictive models have to be specific on some level, and specificity is a trade-off for generalizability.

[thisintegrated]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Looking at the empirical evidence (which is tainted by WEIRD bias; "Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic"), SD has doubtful intercultural validity, certainly not cross-cultural. At least it has some empirical evidence though ?, considering it lines up with world history in broad strokes and correlates with other WEIRD stage theories (Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Kegan etc.).

However, it's practically impossible to create a perfectly universal theory of human development (independent of contextual factors, i.e. culture, socioeconomics etc.) that isn't almost only descriptive (like Sameroff's transactional theory). Predictive models have to be specific on some level, and specificity is a trade-off for generalizability.

I feel like you disagree just to disagree?

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I feel like you disagree just to disagree?

I feel that knowing the limits of various scientific models doesn't threaten my worldview. I don't know about you

[thisintegrated]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I feel that knowing the limits of various scientific models doesn't threaten my worldview. I don't know about you

*model working perfectly*

Carl: I-It doesn't work!!!

[Carl-Richard]

28 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

*model working perfectly*

Carl: I-It doesn't work!!!

Based on a naive 1st person "I apply the model, it works" conception of verification, then sure... I'm talking about statistically rigorous empirical evidence. Jean Piaget's stage theory, the cognitive backbone of SD (basically 1-to-1 correlation with beige to orange), has been shown to not work in intercultural studies. Piaget carried out virtually all his studies in Geneva, Switzerland without controlling for cultural background, just like Clare Graves carried out most of his studies in America on majority white college students.

[thisintegrated]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Based on a naive 1st person "I apply the model, it works" conception of verification, then sure... I'm talking about statistically rigorous empirical evidence. Jean Piaget's stage theory, the cognitive backbone of SD (basically 1-to-1 correlation with beige to orange), has been shown to not work in intercultural studies. Piaget carried out virtually all his studies in Geneva, Switzerland without controlling for cultural background, just like Clare Graves carried out most of his studies in America on majority white college students.

TE ALERT!  TE ALERT!  TE ALERT!  

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, thisintegrated said:

TE ALERT!  TE ALERT!  TE ALERT!  

Outside the MBTI cult, it's called reading ?

That said, stage models like SD and all the others work pretty good if you're white.

[thisintegrated]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Outside the MBTI cult, it's called reading ?

That said, stage models like SD and all the others work pretty good if you're white.

No.. I know people from many countries, and SD and MBTI work equally well with them all.

[Loba]

TBF enfp is superior, idky you'd wanna be an infp, lolol

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Loba said:

TBF enfp is superior, idky you'd wanna be an infp, lolol

This is the selection bias I'm talking about. You're making it seem like I only use Te because I like to use empiricism to criticize MBTI, a topic where speculation around cognitive functions are the most likely to come up in the first place. What about my 6500 other posts in other threads? Besides, according to thisintegrated himself, caring about Te is not indicative of a Te type, because apparently ENTP uses it all the time.

[thisintegrated]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is the selection bias I'm talking about. You're making it seem like I only use Te because I like to use empiricism to criticize MBTI, a topic where speculation around cognitive functions are the most likely to come up in the first place. What about my 6500 other posts in other threads? Besides, according to thisintegrated himself, caring about Te is not indicative of a Te type, because apparently ENTP uses it all the time.

ENTPs don't use it as a crutch when their arguments are failing??

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, thisintegrated said:

ENTPs don't use it as a crutch when their arguments are failing??

Yeah, apparently they just go silent 

[Carl-Richard]

@thisintegrated

This is what is going on here: you have a blockage against acknowledging the empirical facts because it would supposedly force you to engage in Te, which would undermine your framework two-fold (because you would to have to both concede the argument because I'm right AND demonstrate in real time how flimsy the framework is). Instead you've resorted to going silent or posting vague snarky responses like "hehe, Te!", which is a double bind tactic: if I go silent, I lose; If I keep going, I lose. It's also covert frame control, which is usually what Tier 1 people do when they feel threatened (hmm...). Tier 2 always acknowledge the frame, because they're context/construct aware and above such petty games. Anyways, I said I would stop giving the same critiques over and over again, and now you know more why.

[thisintegrated]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

@thisintegrated

This is what is going on here: you have a blockage against acknowledging the empirical facts because it would supposedly force you to engage in Te, which would undermine your framework two-fold (because you would to have to both concede the argument because I'm right AND demonstrate in real time how flimsy the framework is). Instead you've resorted to going silent or posting vague snarky responses like "hehe, Te!", which is a double bind tactic: if I go silent, I lose; If I keep going, I lose. This is called covert frame control, which is usually what Tier 1 people do when they feel threatened (hmm...). Tier 2 always acknowledge the frame, because they're context/construct aware and above such petty games. Anyways, I said I would stop giving the same critiques over and over again, and now you know more why.

Why.. my favorite people just so happen to be Te users??

I don't think I'm anti-Te, or a Te-ist, or functionist??

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, thisintegrated said:

Why.. my favorite people just so happen to be Te users??

I don't think I'm anti-Te, or a Te-ist, or functionist??

Ok, then let me just not concede to your framework at all then: you have a blockage against acknowledging the empirical facts.

[thisintegrated]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, then let me just not concede to your framework at all then: you have a blockage against acknowledging the empirical facts.

No.  I just recognize your overreliance on it and point it out.