- This topic has 67 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@mark-kamibaya Looks like I didn’t phrase myself very well. I didn’t mean to say that psychology is a pseudoscience. What I meant was that I think it tends to include a lot more pseudoscience than a lot of other scientific arenas (i.e. meteorology). I think this is because, for the materialist, it is the closest to a religion they can get. So what I’m saying is I don’t know who to trust. If a well-respected psychology group said that MBTI was bogus, I’d have to do a lot of research on them to know if I could trust them.
I don’t think I explained my statistical argument very well either. At least, if I did, I’m not sure how you could use the same logic for the geocentric theory. Well, maybe I do. I’ll get to that later. Let me use a simple example. I’ve guessed the personality types of a few people I know in real life. Not haphazard guesses, but ones I was really sure of. I’ve made five of these. One doesn’t know his personality type, but the other four did. Of those four, I guessed all of them correctly. So, what are the chances of that? Let’s say the article you brought up is correct that the only function of MBTI that is scientifically viable is extroversion/introversion. In that case, MBTI can only narrow a person’s personality down to two divisions, under which are eight other completely bogus divisions. Thus, supposing I’m good at discerning between introversion and extroversion, my chances of guessing a person right are one in eight. Based on that, my chances of guessing all four people right is one in four thousand and ninety-six. If my fifth guess turns out right, I’ll have won the lottery of one in thirty-two thousand, seven hundred and sixty-eight.
So back to your argument about geocentricity. I think what you’re saying is that theories can still be wrong even with a lot of evidence for them. The geocentric model could explain a lot about the movements of the sky, but it was still wrong. That’s true, but on the other hand, the heliocentric model is always right. When another model is always right, we can discard MBTI. In the meantime, it’s a crazy good theory that can be right 4095/4096th of the time, and even if a better model came out, MBTI would still be useful.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@mark-kamibaya I think the creepy part is the association with the occult. HOWEVER, it’s worth something that Myers and Briggs TRIED to be scientific. I actually do agree with you, Mark, that there should have been more peer review, etc. It’s not scientific unless you follow the Method.
Y’all are right to think that people go looking for religion in many things. I guess the question we have to ask is whether MBTI is worth using with the caveats. For me, I choose to stay away because of the occult roots. For many of us, it’s a helpful tool for the beginning of understanding a character. But I contend that it isn’t where we should end.
However, I don’t find anything wrong with looking in to a new system that might be an even more helpful tool. If it isn’t, let’s ditch it. 😉
By the way, @Kate-flouronoy before I knew about the iffy things surrounding MBTI, I was not an INFJ. I tested many times and nearly always received the same analysis. 😀 Anybody else want to hazard a guess?*blinks* Am I the only writer who doesn’t think that much about psychology and philosophy and theory and stuff like that?
☀ ☀ ☀ ENFP ☀ ☀ ☀
@dragon-snapper Yep. 😀
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@daeus *wails* I’m all alone!!!
☀ ☀ ☀ ENFP ☀ ☀ ☀
@daeus LOL! I guess I trust psychology a little more than you. Your statistical achievement is really something. It made me rethink my position on MBTI and my chances to win the Powerball. But you’re still assuming MBTI is correct. I would rather try to empirically find out evidence instead of trying to prove a theory. It’s begging the question and having confirmation bias at the same time. But you’re making conclusions (accurate conclusions, I might add) based on observable traits. Great. Good for you. Other personality tests do the same thing. The real question is not whether or not MBTI is accurate. It’s whether or not the traits you’re dealing with are the basic traits of human personality. As for the geocentric nonsense I spoke of . . . people who believed it also had confirmation bias and begged the question. So let’s just agree to disagree, I guess. I mean, I don’t trust MBTI and you do, but we both still use it in writing. And, more importantly, we both agree that the earth revolves around the sun. Not the other way around.
@BethanySinkyRoses Then by all means stay away from MBTI. MBTI is not worth violating your conscience. Use the Five Factor Theory instead or that weird Greek sanguine and choleric strangeness. Actually, don’t use the Greek strangeness . . . it’s strange. 😛 BTW I can’t get over your username. Whenever I type it, I think of a girl I know named Bethany. And she’s sinking roses. Or sinking with roses.I blog on story and spiritual things at mkami.weebly.com
@mark-kamibaya Sinking Roses? I’m confused. :p
Oh, I think I get it! My username is Bethany’s Inky Roses, haha. So you picture this girl sinking roses?! That’s funny! My username other places is inkyrose. 😉 Here it has my name too.
@Mark-Kamibaya yes. Most people do use it as a classification system, which bothers me to no end. If you dig down deep and really get to understand the process though, you’ll see the sixteen types are really only a general summary of probabilities built on the common tendencies/stereotypes of the different functions. (Not cognitive functions; don’t know much about those yet. But the eight different letters that combine to make the types).
Quick rundown of those eight letters and what they mean. I’ll take two polar opposites that have all eight letters between them and deconstruct.
INFP
ESTJ
The difference between I and E is not, as most people seem to think, whether or not a person likes people. And the ‘energized by people or alone time’ is slightly more accurate, but it is a symptom, not the key itself.
Whether you’re an introvert or and extrovert has to do with where your world is— in your head, or in the world around you. Whether it requires an effort of any kind to step outside your normal boundaries and feel comfortable with people in general, or whether socializing comes easy and natural.
For instance, I’m an INFP, and left entirely to my own natural inclination I could probably live alone in an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere for the rest of my life and be perfectly happy. Does this mean I despise people? No. Does this mean I can’t enjoy social events? No! Does this mean I can’t even be comfortable around people I don’t know all that well? Not at all. It just means I wouldn’t walk out the door and hop over to a friend’s house without a second thought. It would be abnormal for me. If I’m going somewhere, I need to get my head right before I get there and actually make up my mind to do this abnormal thing.N versus S… iNtuitive versus Sensing. This is how you understand the world. If you’re an iNtuitive, you understand the world based on your knowledge of truths and underlying concepts. If you’re a Sensor, you understand the world based on observation and your own experience. Sensors are the practical ones, and iNtuitives the… *chuckles* I don’t even know. I’m one myself and still can’t put a name to it. 😛
F versus T is Feeling Versus Thinking. This function determines how you process the world; generally speaking, based on what you feel is right, or what is logically right? Through your heart or through your head? A lot of people take this to mean that Feelers are completely illogical and Thinkers completely heartless, but nothing could be further from the truth. This simply determines which has the ultimate decision— the head or the heart.
Perceiving versus Judging is where it gets a little tricky. This one actually determines which of two other functions are dominant. See, the Sensing/iNtuitive function is called the Perceiving Function, because it’s how you perceive/understand the world. The Thinking/Feeling function is called the Judging Function, because it’s the step-by-step process by which you understand/process the world.
If you’re a Judger, your Thinking/Feeling function dominates your Sensing/iNtuitive and therefore precedence goes to what you’ve processed, not what you’ve perceived. This makes Judgers very detail-oriented and methodical.
If you’re a Perceiver, your Sensing/iNtuitive function dominates your Thinking/Feeling function, and therefore precedence goes to what you’ve perceived, not what you’ve processed. This makes Perceivers very big-picture thinkers and explorative and insatiably curious about everything. They can process, just as Judgers can perceive, but either one or the other is dominant and comes naturally.Aaaand that was really longer than I thought it would be and you might already know that, but hey. It’s done. 😛 All that to illustrate my point that it is more than just a classification system built on basic observation of trends and probabilities.
*salutes*
… oh, does anything I said there help make your type any clearer?
@Mark-Kamibaya That’s what you get when you make clickbait. XD It’s an interesting discussion at any rate.
@BethanysInkyRoses REALLY? That makes a lot more sense now. I always thought it was Bethany Sinky Roses and could never figure out why. Thank you for the enlightenment! *chuckle* Sorry ’bout that. No apostrophe in a username… Aaaand are you an INFP then? Or…a Sensor?@mark-kamibaya WHAT!?!? The earth revolves around the sun???????
Here, have some fun with this. (one piece of language, fyi)
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@Daeus *doubles over laughing* *manages to pull self together long enough to type a reply* THIS IS GREAT. I’m totally convinced the earth is flat now. XD XD
Blog: https://weridasusual.home.blog/
This discussion is getting weirder every hour. @emma-flournoy Nope. I’m not. 😉 Hint: every guess has been way off base. Your last was closer though.
@bethanysinkyroses ESTP?
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.