MBTI Compatibility Theory ..Accurate!?????

[Gesundheit2]

5 hours ago, something_else said:

It’s alright for some surface level comparisons, like sensors and intuitive are probably not gonna get on that well together

But when you start saying/thinking things like “your 4th cognitive function makes you incompatible with everyone who has a certain cognitive function in their 2nd slot”, you’ve entered astrology and ideology land

According to MBTI freaks, the alleged cognitive functions are more important than the surface level alleged types.

It's a funny model, gotta admit.

[AtheisticNonduality]

22 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

INFP = crazy and submissive

[thisintegrated]

52 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

They're FiTes, though.  You definitely wanna get some experience with INFPs and ENTPs before committing to anything.

[thisintegrated]

I am a little shocked.  One if the INTJs I've been talking to has turned out to be a Blue!!!!!  (the ultimate betrayal)

It's so weird.  They were seemingly smart, well-educated, multi-lingual, etc. but turns out it's possible to be a real INTJ, living up to the title, yet still have the awareness of an 8-12 year old??

I thought if I simply avoided all the SFs I'd avoid this situation, but there's just way too many Blues !  We're getting overrun !!

Edited June 8, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Loba]

Inside every demon is a rainbow.

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Loba

[hyruga]

6 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I am a little shocked.  One if the INTJs I've been talking to has turned out to be a Blue!!!!!  (the ultimate betrayal)

It's so weird.  They were seemingly smart, well-educated, multi-lingual, etc. but turns out it's possible to be a real INTJ, living up to the title, yet still have the awareness of an 8-12 year old??

I thought if I simply avoided all the SFs I'd avoid this situation, but there's just way too many Blues !  We're getting overrun !!

INTJs are actually very studious but most of them are not open minded so they don't try out new things until they become old. So most of them may have low awareness.

[integral]

4 hours ago, hyruga said:

INTJs are actually very studious but most of them are not open minded so they don't try out new things until they become old. So most of them may have low awareness.

sounds like a possible mistake for ISTJs

[AtheisticNonduality]

15 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I am a little shocked.  One if the INTJs I've been talking to has turned out to be a Blue!!!!!  (the ultimate betrayal)

Bellew.

 

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Bellew.

 

Oh damn, nice sound design.  Pretty decent, though a bit monotonic, with a weak climax and unorganized structure.

[thisintegrated]

Without knowing MBTI, I might think I'm the problem when I feel like someone's too boring or stupid.

Without Spiral Dynamics, I might think that religion vs atheism is just personal preference.  That one isn't better than the other.  That there are no deeper implications to the fact that someone takes the bibe/quran literally.

 

As a NeTi user, I never needed personal experience to show me there's value in these models.  It was always obvious.  And now, personal experience has completely validated all the theories.  It really is as simple as you imagine it to be.  If MBTI or SD or Enneagram says you're incompatible with someone, then you are.  You can make it work, but it's not worth it.  If someone's a Blue, dump them.

Just something for the Carls of the forum to think about?

Edited June 8, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

On 6/7/2022 at 9:18 PM, thisintegrated said:

It's so weird.  They were seemingly smart, well-educated, multi-lingual, etc.

By what specific means do you organize people according to smart vs. not-smart and well-educated vs. uneducated? What are your primary examples of smart people that you've known?

[thisintegrated]

17 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

By what specific means do you organize people according to smart vs. not-smart and well-educated vs. uneducated? What are your primary examples of smart people that you've known?

It's not anything specific.  It's usually lots of little things that add up.  E.g. Errors in basic logic, prioritising feelings over logic, etc.

Like, if I said "I feel that sensors are smarter" you could conclude I'm retarded.  Why?  Not because the statement is incorrect, but because of a number of obvious problems with that statement.  If I considered that to be a good argument/assertion, it would suggest a lot of things about the way I think.

 

• "Because the quran says so"
• "Because pork is haram"
• "Pigs are filthy, so we shouldn't eat them"
• "don't you want to believe in an afterlife"
• "But I feel x"
• "They're bad people"
• "but you can't know that"
• "I have my beliefs, you have yours"
• "God is good, but people are bad, so we need religion as it's God's words [interpreted by the people ..who are bad?]"
• "Without religion people would kill and rape"

Are some failures in reasoning I commonly hear.

Edited June 9, 2022 by thisintegrated

[thisintegrated]

22 hours ago, Loba said:

 

You're Blue?  I'm so sorry to hear that??

 

 

22 hours ago, Loba said:

Inside every demon is a rainbow.

 

I doubt that.  Though maybe there's a demon inside every rainbow?

[AtheisticNonduality]

57 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

It's not anything specific.  It's usually lots of little things that add up.

Yes, but specific examples. Of people you know you'd consider highly intelligent or highly cognitively inept.

[thisintegrated]

14 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Yes, but specific examples. Of people you know you'd consider highly intelligent or highly cognitively inept.

Intelligence ime is mostly just the absence of stupidity.  It's the mistakes that are easy to notice.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

 

But sure, there are plenty of notably smart people.  E.g. Tom Campbell, Andrew Yang, Bashar, Bruce Lipton, Shinzen Young, Jordan Peterson, and you've probably heard all the Yellow/Turquoise examples in Leo's videos.  The first 3 basically don't make mistakes.  Their cognitive abilities are flawless, though sure I still disagree with Tom on some stuff, but he's peak Turquoise and his views are valid in their own way.

Edited June 9, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Bashar

My first thought was Bashar al-Assad, but then I remembered the alien "channeler" guy.

[thisintegrated]

Just now, AtheisticNonduality said:

My first thought was Bashar al-Assad, but then I remembered the alien "channeler" guy.

Bashar al-Assad, of course??

[Carl-Richard]

@thisintegrated

Just from a first person perspective, I simply prefer the feeling of not knowing over illusions of knowledge, which is a tension I feel very often when I engage in MBTI typing, to some extent SD.

However, I've noticed that with the very best models, I don't really have to engage in them consciously, because they're in a sense too obvious, maybe because they're fully ingrained in my thinking, or because they're an integral part of common language, like with Big 5.

For example, when you're describing a person using normal personal adjectives, you can easily siphon each description under a Big 5 category in retrospect (because that is how the model was constructed). However, with MBTI and SD, it feels kinda forced, like my mind is funneled into some stereotypical lines of thought and post-hoc reasoning; square-pegging round holes.

[Gesundheit2]

[thisintegrated]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@thisintegrated

Just from a first person perspective, I simply prefer the feeling of not knowing over illusions of knowledge, which is a tension I feel very often when I engage in MBTI typing, to some extent SD.

However, I've noticed that with the very best models, I don't really have to engage in them consciously, because they're in a sense too obvious, maybe because they're fully ingrained in my thinking, or because they're an integral part of common language, like with Big 5.

For example, when you're describing a person using normal personal adjectives, you can easily siphon each description under a Big 5 category in retrospect (because that is how the model was constructed). However, with MBTI and SD, it feels kinda forced, like my mind is funneled into some stereotypical lines of thought and post-hoc reasoning; square-pegging round holes.

The N vs S dichotomy isn't super obvious without knowing MBTI, yet it's the single most obvious and defining characteristic once you do know MBTI.

The dichotomies in big 5 are far less meaningful.  Spontaneous vs Conscientious doesn't really tell you anything, and neither does Agreeable/Hostile, nor Stable/Neurotic.

If I know someone's an INTJ, I know how they'll react to my Ne.  I know what makes them happy, and I know what makes them angry.

If I know someone's an ISTJ, I also know how they'll react to my functions, and I would talk to them in a completely different way than how I'd talk to an INTJ. 

 

If I know someone's neurotic.. wtf does that tell me?  I'm one of the most stable people I know, yet I'd probably fall under the neurotic category.  It's not in any way meaningful information.  Where would you put a perfectionistic (aka neurotic) person who's super-confident and happy?  Or a 7w8, like me?  7 = agreeable and friendly with everyone, 8 = disagreeable with everyone.  I'm literally agreeable and disagreeable at the same time.  I debate against people (8) who I actually agree with (7).  Another problem with the big 5 is.. I can't say e.g. "I don't like C users" as the system is ill-thought-out, and C is ambiguous.  There are no ambiguities with "Ti", for example.

 

My big 5 would be: Oxxxx.  As I'm equal for all the last 4.  

Edited June 9, 2022 by thisintegrated