CIA Spy on MBTI

[Yali]

5 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

not a system in use.

Socionics Intertype Relations theory is very accurate IMO. It should be incorporated into MBTI. @thisintegrated

[integral]

22 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@thisintegrated How do they treat ENTP terrorists?

Duck tape, lots of duck tape. 

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, Yali said:

Socionics Intertype Relations theory is very accurate IMO. It should be incorporated into MBTI. @thisintegrated

I was saying we should salvage what we can from Socionics and put in into MBTI.  Type compatibility could be one thing, but imo the MBTI compatibility chart is more accurate.  Some specific elements of Socionics like beneficiary/benefactor relationships, or the 5th/6th function role in relationships is something MBTI completely lacks, so I'd definitely want to see that in MBTI.

[bambi]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

They taught you well. Every MBTI enthusiast thinks personality tests are useless, and it's the first thing they'll tell you.

Who taught me well?

I have literally no idea what your talking about

[Dryas]

Wait so he speaks in favor of MBTI but he’s using letter dichotomies and not cognitive functions? 
 

that’s kinda funny. 

[Carl-Richard]

35 minutes ago, bambi said:

Who taught me well?

I have literally no idea what your talking about

You had to learn MBTI from somewhere, and sooner or later you had to adopt the core justifications (survival agenda) to keep using the model.

[bambi]

31 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You had to learn MBTI from somewhere, and sooner or later you had to adopt the core justifications (survival agenda) to keep using the model.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about, are you sober?

How is anything your writing relevant to any of my posts, why are you directing this at me

[flyingguitarist]

@Dryas lol point to be noted

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, bambi said:

I literally have no idea what you are talking about, are you sober?

How is anything your writing relevant to any of my posts, why are you directing this at me

I pointed out how you gave the standard MBTI defense.

[bambi]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I pointed out how you gave the standard MBTI defense.

Where did I defend MBTI? Again, what are you talking about. Please go back and read my posts slowly, maybe double or triple reading to you actual understand what I wrote, and then if your still convinced I am defending MBTI, can you pleae reference directly where you think this is the case

 

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, bambi said:

Where did I defend MBTI?

You came in with this "let me tell you how it is" attitude and then drew a sharp distinction between the test and the construct, and then you claimed that in fact all personality tests suck, which excuses the poor performance of MBTI in that realm.

[flyingguitarist]

Why do people take Mbti too seriously, it's like you are masturbating and fighting simultaneously. What's even the point of Mbti,socionics etc . .. focus on that , in the end it's just a model , just have fun in stereotyping yourself and other people

[bambi]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You came in with this "let me tell you how it is" attitude and then drew a sharp distinction between the test and the construct, and then you claimed that in fact all personality tests suck, which excuses the poor performance of MBTI in that realm.

You are right I am telling you how it is from my viewpoint and expertise in the area.

You're still making mistakes in your representation of what I said, which is just weird, your not reading or comprehending what I wrote properly,  probably becuase you immediately disliked my authoritative tone, its literally stopping you from cognizing what I wrote, which is causing you to form improper beliefs about what I am actually saying or said, which has in turn proliferated this completely pointless interaction.

You'd have been better of to just address your root issue, you didn't like my tone lol

[Carl-Richard]

@bambi Clarify what you intended to say then. That's what I did like 5 times.

[bambi]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@bambi Clarify what you intended to say then. That's what I did like 5 times.

There's nothing needed to clarify, my post articulates my stance. Your just miscomprehending it due to the fact you don't like my tone as explained quite succinctly above. I think my communication is clear, precise and articulate. I literally have no idea what your talking about besides you don't like my tone, and that I am defending MBTI (what?) or that all personality tests suck (what? I never said that at all)

I would honestly take time out to reflect on these posts, and see why it is your mind is producing things I've never said in any of these posts

[Carl-Richard]

11 minutes ago, bambi said:

or that all personality tests suck (what? I never said that at all)

 

On 14.8.2022 at 10:08 PM, bambi said:

The test is as flawed as any self assessment test

The MBTI test sucks, so you're implying that all personality tests suck.

[Carl-Richard]

On 14.8.2022 at 10:08 PM, bambi said:

The underlying theory is as valid as particle physics.

Let's say I divided people into two types: winners and losers. You can only be one type. Is this a good model? Well, personality psychology as a field has generally come to the conclusion that so-called "type theories" (typologies) are generally bad models, because when you try to make a standardized measurement for them (i.e. a personality test), the tests simply end up not being valid (testing what they're actually supposed to test) or reliable (giving the same results over different times).

The Big 5 solves this by being a trait model (each trait exist in all people, and you get a 0-100 score on each trait). You can argue that it makes the model ugly, but the test for it is at least valid and reliable. The problem when you don't have a standardized measurement is that anything you try to establish becomes highly prone to bias. This is why for example psychiatrists only give you a psychiatric diagnosis after they've given you a long and proper standardized test.

[Yali]

23 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Type compatibility could be one thing, but imo the MBTI compatibility chart is more accurate.

I think Socionics Compatibility makes more sense since its based off shared cognitive functions unlike MBTI. How can you expect to get along with someone who doesn't share your values?

 

 @thisintegrated

Edited August 16, 2022 by Yali

[thisintegrated]

4 minutes ago, Yali said:

I think Socionics Compatibility makes more sense since its based off shared cognitive functions, unlike MBTI. @thisintegrated

wdym?  Duality is based off not sharing functions.  Comradery, an MBTI concept, is based on shared functions.

 

14 hours ago, Dryas said:

Wait so he speaks in favor of MBTI but he’s using letter dichotomies and not cognitive functions? 
 

that’s kinda funny. 

ikr, lol.

 

13 hours ago, bambi said:

I literally have no idea what you are talking about, are you sober?

He's always like this..

Funny how he locks threads when other admit to drunk-posting.

[Yali]

9 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Duality is based off not sharing functions.

This is flat out wrong.

Duality is based off sharing the same functions but in opposite order. 

I don't know who you're getting your knowledge from but I would recommend Typevolution on YouTube.

@thisintegrated

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Yali