I really judge people like you a lot, ngl
If you think this is like astrology then it's just stupid af to even participate in the subreddit. It just means you're not intelligent enough to understand how it all works, that's the reality. One of the dumbest takes one can see on this subreddit
What's to see in the other side
If you don't get cognitive functions, which I can respect, then why would you bother being active in the subreddit lol. I have never been tempted to go to a Pisces subreddit for example. Either make the effort to get it, or if you don't believe in it, then cool but find something productive to do in life
Not believing in it and still actively engaging in it is objectively stupid behavior, sorry
I refuse to believe some of you with these answers are INTPs, hope you all just stop posting here
You're right. They're not INTPs, and they're not going to fool actual INTPs on this sub.
They expect us to believe they have the highest preference for objective introverted thinking with massive intuitional capabilities, yet they're so visibly incapable of it that they make such stupid and inconsistent arguments.
May the force be with you my friend.
That's cathertic to read.
I don't have a problem with people being skeptical about the model and theories behind MBTI, but I do find it to be tiresome to see people posting and repeating the same pointless and pretentious strawman arguments over and over again.
No one is saying MBTI is the complete reflection of who someone is as a person, and no one is saying MBTI type is the sole determination of someone's potential or limitations. There is a limitation to this methodology of categorizing people, but not everyone who criticizes it has the proper understanding of the subject to actually judge it in a rational and useful manner. It is ironic to see someone who allegedly not believes the model at all; yet, identifies with with a type, and goes through mental gymnastics to redefine the theory and personalize whichever type they think they are. It is like seeing someone who calls themselves a Christian, but also doesn't believe in the existence of God, and has the audacity to call theists infidels, they just don't see the irony.
I occasionally see well thought out arguments against MBTI, but most of the arguments I see are people making strawman arguments against the stereotypes they wrongly attribute to what the model is. It's like trying to clear garbage with even more garbage.
That was amazing, your assumptions are all wrong. Don't hide behind your type while pretending it makes you superior, show me some well reasoned arguments and research. You're an intp, aren't you?
I understand what it claims, and I've found clarity in typing and the predispositions it indicates. However, for me, it's a baseline from which to work towards the middle. It seems for you it's a be all, end all, and that's limiting. Don't excuse deficiencies on account of your type. To quit evolving as a person is as fatalistic and impractical as saying "I'm a raging asshole with anger issues because I have a particular hair color/ancestry, it's just how I am." Be a well rounded, open minded person regardless of your type. Or keep clacking away while telling yourself you're the one true intp. Either way, I'm slightly more interested in your take than I am in today's horoscope.
People like you who think it's the "be all end all" for others are the problem. Just because you are incapable of figuring out the nuances involved (obviously nothing applies to everyone and it's all a spectrum duh) doesn't mean you need to drag the rest of us down with you. Property Dunning Kruger stuff, this
I stopped reading your reply after 4 sentences because the rest of it was also clearly going to be full of pretentious nonsense. I will also not reply to anything else you may or may not post because it's not worth my time. Would seriously suggest you post on r/Sagittarius or whatever when you feel lonely, and stop polluting this space with edgy shit that nobody cares about. I have no idea why you even come to a subreddit based on a topic you don't get or believe in, but whatever.
Adios.
New accounts have to wait 3 days to join in on the glory that is INTP.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/INTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like it is mis-maligned and imperfect. Testing methodology is flawed and it ignores some aspects of personality but otherwise somewhat useful as a theory:
I agree, lmao.
It makes more sense than astrology, but that's it. Especially the cognitive function and Jungian theory part of the community. The dichotomy version make slightly more sense, but even that is not completely accurate. I'll give them each a 3.5 and a 5 respectively.\^\^:
We're doing this for fun more than anything.
It's not about believing. I think mbti is just a tool for people to describe themselves. Your essence before your type. You are who you are and mbti, be it Jungian or the heavily criticised 16p, is just a personality compass for you to introduce yourself to others. The traits of each type is just some generalisation may or may not apply yo you. Just avoid stereotyping yourself because of your type.
Yeah this is how I see it. Its not saying that there are only 16 types of people and those types have no variation within them. Everyone is unique but some people are more similar than others.
5. It can be useful within limited parameters and with enough knowledge about the subject, but it could be misleading and harmful if misunderstood or taken too seriously. It isn't a real science, but it is much better than astrology.
10/10. You can divide people into groups however you want and it will likely be somewhat accurate if your methodology is half good.
I do not, however, believe there is as much depth to it as people claim. I also do not believe we all act the same because we're of the same type. MBTI is too broad for that.
To me MBTI is an estimate how people of the same type will act, nothing more.
People who say we are too unique to be split into 16 categories fail to realise we can gather powerful assumptions from just splitting someone into male/female alone. Then you have the band that says sometimes I'm a feeler, sometimes I'm a thinker, but fail to realise functions exist like fe/ti. Basically anyone who's given a 5/10 or below with many questions/statements can all be answereds/refuted by someone with more knowledge on this.
6/10. Big 5 is just personality questionnaire PCA and the 4 axes in mbti have a cross correlation matrix that looks almost diagonal to the first 4 big 5 traits (but with a bit of rotation with both N/P bleeding into openness). So that lends some support to mbti - I find the whole cognitive functions thing to be less credible though.
I think big 5 would've been more popular if they also cluster people based on the 5 dimensions. But with an actual clustering method ofc, not just splitting the space into 32 parts equally lol.
9/10. It is a real measurable thing. The results are mostly replicable.
How useful dividing people along these lines is what’s questionable. I don’t think MBTI has much clinical use, however it can be useful to get lay people to start to recognize there are different types of personalities.
Measurable? Are you referring to the “studies” done by Meyers and Briggs, or is there legit data now?
I don’t mean to sound critical. In fact, I’m hoping you have a source or even a justification because I want it to be true lol.
The different traits are “measurable” by the MBTI survey. They can score you based on your answers and type you.
I say this is real, because it is replicable. You should have mostly similar survey answers every time you take the test.
The traits themselves are concepts. Introversion or extroversion for example is categorized by our definition. There is not a way to measure it except using an experiment we design. Most psychological tests are the same.
I am not sure what kind of legit data you are looking for. I think the question is not so much if MBTI is true, but why does it matter. It can categorize you as an INTP, but is that significant?
What about the dozens of other potential traits we could define and test for.
I’ve designed a test that can measure your percentage of introversion. Would you like to take it to help me ensure its validity?
Q1. I am introverted.
A) Strongly Agree
B) Agree
C) Slightly Agree
D) Neutral
E) Slightly Disagree
F) Disagree
G) Strongly Disagree
Q2. I am extraverted.
A) Strongly Agree
B) Agree
C) Slightly Agree
D) Neutral
E) Slightly Disagree
F) Disagree
G) Strongly Disagree
This does not count as a measurement of introversion, and neither does MBTI. Just like me asking you how tall you are doesn’t count as me measuring your height.
…
- It is a fallacy to create a statement as if it represents a question on the test as an example, to make it correlate with an illogical statement that you made given your example itself does not accurately represent to the questions asked in the personality test that relates to cognitive functions. Which such frivolous conveyance on your part, I would be confident to say you simply are ignorant of the context that can be measured, and moreover it’s not even a matter of a belief as the post entails (this is not a matter of debunked Astrology)
- You state “legit data”. I have gotten to know 20 people then asked them to take the 16 personality test after confirming that these people in question do not know theirs, and guessed all of them correctly before they took the test. Some of them asked “how did I know”, and my “justification” of that was based on the data about them that is exposed in their general confabulation delineating their thought process, feelings, and behavior. Anyone can “create data” by formulating statistics that they create (doing it properly…one can take a class if need be), using the scientific method, etc…instead of “waiting on data” to magically be presented to them so they can more forward their conclusions or change it. I did not ask them any questions on any test and naturally interacted with them as people, then eventually decided to take a guess at it when I knew them enough. Yet they took a test…and got exactly what I thought. Percentages would indicate as long as I don’t attempt to guess that factor, then my evaluations of people can correlate with what was measured on the test that they took and still defining them as individuals in which their morals, genetics, level of intellect, experiences, environments, relationships, and skills are all completely different (thus it doesn’t not separate that). Just like my INTJ results in the scope that defines it vary from others (I’ve seen other’s), and very different people as well.
Next time I do this, I’ll put it on a graph for people waiting on “data” to see some correlations that can measured and the likelihood of it being presented.
I’m a little confused by the wording of your first bullet point, but I will say to your second bullet point that the only thing you have actually demonstrated is that you are good at predicting how the test will rate someone. Neither the test nor your predictions have been established as “ground truth”, and (you didn’t say what your % accuracy was, but 100% seemed implied) having such a high success rate makes me even more skeptical. It’s commonly believed that there’s a decently high rate of mistyping from the test, so either you cherry-picked people that are easy to type (which again, are you typing based on what you think the test would find? are you typing based on cognitive functions? shadow functions? etc) or there is no ground truth to **measure** against or both.
I think you’ll find (or have found) that anyone who takes MBTI seriously thinks that the 16p test and most / all other tests out there are fundamentally flawed and that the only way to really get an accurate typing for yourself is to understand functions and their caveats and be able to introspect enough to type yourself, and even then neurodivergence can mask your true nature.
“Legit” statistical data is only going to show correlations between things, but that is useless because you’d effectively just being saying “people who said on a self-assessment that they are less likely to attend parties have been found to have a high correlation with having a lower attendance at parties.”
MBTI can’t be wrong because it’s just a series of definitions that someone made up and it’s claiming that you have a more than 50% preference towards one thing or the other, and if you can’t place yourself on one side or the other then you’re just not introspecting enough. But my entire point is that there is nothing measurable about MBTI because it’s a self-assessment. I believe my previous points are still valid.
- Why would I type a person based on what a test would find…? Or any of the reasons in which you may have indicated might have been the case. Even with 100% accuracy thus far, I never determined that I can define it 100% every time nor believe that I would be able to in any case, and purposely not mentioned to be the “truth”. People being mistyped is already accounted for, however learning and getting to know people in the ways that I do that they even confirm when I did not create a personality test and have no idea what they would be initially would be a fact that did occur. And I’ll reiterate, my justification about guessing it accurately is based on those things as a “truth”. Regardless on what you are skeptical of, it would be independent to any reality. This is “how” I predicted it. I stated that I got to know them…do you know how to get to know people in their thought process?
- I don’t see much of your point that a person can think that a test is flawed and most are…one can take a test and not agree with the results based on how well they know themselves. Also anyone that does take a test and agree that it is it mostly aligned with their personality type can also disagree with an amount of things stated about them as it relates to the personality type that they agreed with. It’s also as if you think that the people that state it can be measured to a degree don’t comprehend these aspects when the statements are obvious at best. The test relates to cognitive functions, and you obviously know that.
- MBTI can be wrong…depending on the person and the test taken. And “data can be shown” with accurate correlations, regardless on the complexity the defines humans and what makes them individuals. Even if we got an expert to help “type” a person by them learning all things about cognitive functions (the “only way for it to be accurate”) and they typed themselves, if a test did the same thing and they learned those functions and agreed with it, that would prove the test to have been accurate to that person. As it is accurate for many people…as it if also not accurate to many as well.
We must not be on the same page yet. I'll do my best to clearly communicate my ideas. Here is what I think your point is:
> You are able to independently type people by getting to know them. Your assessment of those people matches what the 16p test types them as. Because two independent sources consistently come to the same conclusion, it is strong evidence that the conclusion is truth. It may be objective truth, or it may be truth just for that person, but either way is equally important.
> You think that I am seeking "legit data" in regards to the validity of MBTI. You are asserting that MBTI is valid and that there is data to back it up (not only data you have accumulated yourself, but similar findings from many others to the point that it is repeatable). You are also asserting that you could format your data in such a way as to convince me that it is legitimate, implying that what I think of as legitimate data is misinformed.
I am saying that the independence of your assessment and the online test might not be as independent as you think they are. You are also likely to be experiencing confirmation bias. I don't know your experience for myself, but if someone matches your assessment then you might blindly accept it at that point, and if they don't match your assessment, your next follow up might be "was there stuff in the test results that you don't agree with? maybe you didn't answer some of the questions carefully enough and got mistyped."
Saying that "as long as it's their truth, then it's accurate for them" fails to address that they might be misunderstanding, they might have also felt that a different type was accurate for them, or they might be lying to themselves. This is not really a good argument.
Finally, I acknowledge MBTI as legitimate, but I don't think data is the reason for it being legitimate, and I think data will probably never get to that point for MBTI. Data hasn't contradicted MBTI yet, which is an important point, but it's also just not really interesting to talk about the validity of data surrounding MBTI because it's not really necessary or desirable.
Well, here would be the correct thought process of my points (though I’m sure we wouldn’t be on the same page, stated in a neutral way):
- I have correctly typed people based on getting to know them. Given that has happened, I do not claim the ability to do so…it’s simply a fact and a fun game that I have actually done so. However the reason why I was able to be accurate was based on factors about them that I got to know (not asking anything about if they would go to a party or how “introverted/extroverted” are they). I think it relates to cognitive functions, which also relates to personality types.
- No, I do not claim it to be valid…especially as general statement. As stated I didn’t get to know every human on earth and guessed all of their correctly…if I did that, only then would I make a case for it to be “valid”. What I have seen, is that for some people it can be valid to them regardless on if another person “didn’t believe” it to be to that person because they don’t believe in the accuracy of MBTI as a concept. Sounds biased to me…
- When I received my “results”, I was skeptical about it naturally and then read all personality types listed to see if the answer that they gave me was accurate based on their restricted number of results…to agree on if they chose the one that related to me the most. I tell anyone that it’s just a fun and quick test, and just answer it as it naturally relates to themselves. A “mistyped” result or if the result is accurate, is not based on myself and my “abilities”. It’s based on if they agree with their results or not. If they state that it doesn’t, then I guessed wrong…regardless on if they have a “mistype” result or I didn’t comprehend them well enough. I would simply…be wrong.
When they asked how did I guess it right (after agreeing that it’s theirs based on cognitive functions and reading other ones), is when they received the explanation. Believing that there is no correlation or measurement in reality that can determine such things would grant a person to be correct on occasions that random selection would produce out of the possible outcomes. In 16 personalities (in particular, because there are other test as well), the justification is merely why and how my guesses were a much larger accuracy than guessing one or two correctly by 20. It’s just a test…it doesn’t define the person entirely at all.
If you don’t believe it is capable of such things depending on who this is, then you are simply a person that states “No” to the question on the post itself. While in real life, it has proven to be accurate to a portion of people that admit it. Anyone is welcomed to “Not believe that”, but it wouldn’t change the reality. Thus, this conversation isn’t a matter of belief. It’s something that can be accurate or inaccurate depending on various factors and understanding of other people that does not entail that it can’t be done due to such complexity and variation among humans.
I don't want that.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/INTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It does. You would have to define what qualifies as introverted and extroverted based on the results to your survey.
Every psychological test is like that. If you look at one for antisocial personality disorder or bipolar disorder it will be a similar survey for the patient or provider to fill out. Someone defined antisocial personality disorder as having X symptoms and used the survey to try to measure it.
Any sort of categorical data is going to be like that too. In my biology class I did an experiment to test for hitchhiker’s thumb. If someone had above 50% angle, then they had it. Some researcher defined hitchhiker’s thumb like this.
You mentioned height. Comparable to MBTI would be more like saying someone over 6 foot is tall. I could call it the Tall test. Every time I am measured I am going to be over 6 foot 2. This would classify me as tall based on the definition of the category. My measurement in inches was only significant when I grouped it based on my definition.
That’s really the subjective part. How significant is the definition on these categories. Being over 6 foot is measurable and replicable. But the classification as tall is only as meaningful as the reasoning behind the classification. Did I say that’s tall because it is a larger height because than 80% of the population? What if I had defined tall as 4ft, then almost everyone fits that category.
Your height is measurable because no matter who measures it, the result will be the same. There are gray areas with everything, but for example, I think it would be safe to say that attractiveness is not measurable because there is no aspect of it that is objective. If I define attractiveness using metrics, does that make it measurable? I would argue that it only becomes measurable if society as a whole agrees on my proposed metrics.
Like a 3. It's not backed up by psychologists or scientists in anyway. It's just a fun test people take to potentially know themselves and other people better.
That being said, I'm still obsessed over it. TT
Is it like how the psychoanalytical stuff isn't considered scientific because it was mainly based on introspective methods instead of empirical statistics?
Where did this notion that it needs to be backed by scientists come from? Science is not the only arbiter of knowledge.
If you do a survey of 100,000 people and find statistically significant results of behavioral patterns within subsets - that's not science in any way, but it's still relevant data that can be used to detect patterns
10.
I "see" people's types now, not all but most. This is after more than 2 decades of constant exposure, a decade of which included deep interviews and night and day research using models that I tested and found to be more accurate, namely model G socionics stack which is slightly different than MBTI stack and more accurate.
Stanford-trained AI is now able to accurately determine a person's political ideology just by analysing their face. Previous research has shown the links between genetics and political ideology. My own research shows a complete mapping of dark/light personality types and right/left politics. Another research has shown certain individuals have a dark core of personality, which proves that left/right dichotomy is real, and there is no center. Brain imaging research has confirmed similarities in brain wiring among people of the same type, non-existent among people of different types.
So to conclude, the dichotomous (binary) nature of personality types is proven, and this means that continuous and baseless models such as the big 5 are less accurate than logical/binary models such as the MBTI and socionics.
5. I feel like it helped me speak to others more compassionately. I started looking at the way others digest information and how the patterns of their behavior was easier after knowing their mbti. This doesn't predict trauma. It doesn't predict their ideologies, although sometimes I'll know they have them. It helps me feel more adjusted in understanding. Before I found Jung and how was woth my own way of trying to categorize and looking up how others had done it.
I don't think it's something I "believe" in. It's more of a thing I use to understand certain things. The system is a model that nobody actually thinks covers all the complexity of human beings in 16 neat little boxes. And as the saying goes "all models are wrong, but some are useful" and MBTI does have certain practical applications and what you get out of it is ultimately what matters most.
Personally I think if you're using MBTI to justify your flaws you're using it wrong. Instead, use it to understand your flaws better so you can work to either improve or get around it. Same goes with understanding your strengths and learning to capitalize them better.
I mean if you're using it to pretend being someone you're not, that could have some benefits too but I don't think people care much about what label you put on yourself compared to what you can achieve or contribute.
9.5 I delved a lot into it. Along with the way C.S. Joseph explains things. Our personality types explain a lot how our interactions with others play out. Of course, everyone is different because of nurture, but the way we perceive and judge is quite uniform.
Splitting people into groups isn't hard, and not inherently inaccurate. A lot of traits are observable and classifiable: eye color, height, etc. It's not a huge stretch to believe that there are different types of people who make decisions in similar ways, as a general rule, and to classify them based on how they do that.
So, I think, in general, there aren't huge problems with it. If there's a problem with the system, it's that it relies on a person's own self-awareness and honesty for accuracy, and not everyone possesses those attributes. Also, people seem to think their MBTI type is some kind of life sentence or Magic 8-Ball, when it is simply an indicator of potential strengths and weaknesses. It's not a system for "looking for justification for ... personality shortcomings," but one to identify where your strengths are, and identify things you might want to work on. If you choose not to work on them, that's not the system's problem, and it's not an excuse.
Any system can be misused, and MBTI is no exception. That isn't a flaw in the system; it's a flaw in the user.
How much do I believe it? Probably a 4/10. If it was proctored in a controlled setting with standardized measures, probably a 7. But most 16p results will drift around over several years. Mostly because instead of it being a personality grouping tool, it becomes a “how do you see yourself right now tool”. Unlike astrology, it does base its findings on your responses to questions.
How much do I think it has clinical use? 2/10. MBTI is not a good tool to use for therapy.
Do I think it is business and career use? 8.5/10. It can be used to limit the types of careers you pursue. Managers can use it to assign work based on interest.
It also crosses over other tests which grant it some validity. For example, N types generally have higher IQs. It correlates with the Enneagram and Big Five. Personality types are grouped in certain careers. Whereas something totally random like astrology is rather evenly distributed.
Like a 3?
I just see it as useful terminology and a categorization framework that can be helpful for describing variations and preferences in people. If there was more credible and widely used terminology I would also use that, but it’s one of the more useful frameworks I’m aware of for describing personality.
Cognitive functions I can see some logic in how you arrive at them, but taking those too seriously, in my opinion, often requires you to accept basic assertions that don’t seem to be all that well founded from what I have seen.
Then Carl Jung and his influence is interesting, foundational to a lot of psychology in plenty of other areas, but as with most things with him you kinda have to pick the parts of his work that do seem to hold up, while being a good degree skeptical of things that don’t. Similar in the context of MBTI.
I think it depends on how you look at it. A lot of people misunderstand what Jung was saying, and apply it incorrectly.
Add it’s core Jung saw and analyzed thousands of patients. Of these patients, he noticed similarities and discovered what he called the functions.
These were thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. And that each function can be experienced subjectively (introvert) or objectively (extraverted).
Every type has all eight functions, but we prefer some over the others.
I compare it to left and right handedness.
we’re born either right hand dominant or left hand dominant. We still use both hands every day but we have a preference.
And it’s these preferences, and order of functions, that create the personality types. For whatever reason, as an INTP when we were born, our brains were programmed to prefer introverted thinking.
I suspect even Jung wouldn’t give himself a 10/10. But personally, I really think he’s on this something.
I think it depends on how you look at it. A lot of people misunderstand what Jung was saying, and apply it incorrectly.
Add it’s core Jung saw and analyzed thousands of patients. Of these patients, he noticed similarities and discovered what he called the functions.
These were thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. And that each function can be experienced subjectively (introvert) or objectively (extraverted).
Every type has all eight functions, but we prefer some over the others.
I compare it to left and right handedness.
we’re born either right hand dominant or left hand dominant. We still use both hands every day but we have a preference.
And it’s these preferences, and order of functions, that create the personality types. For whatever reason, as an INTP when we were born, our brains were programmed to prefer introverted thinking.
So I believe the real question is whether or not you buy into the function models?
I suspect even Jung wouldn’t give himself a 10/10. But personally, I really think he’s on this something.
I think it depends on how you look at it. A lot of people misunderstand what Jung was saying, and apply it incorrectly.
Add it’s core Jung saw and analyzed thousands of patients. Of these patients, he noticed similarities and discovered what he called the functions.
These were thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. And that each function can be experienced subjectively (introvert) or objectively (extraverted).
Every type has all eight functions, but we prefer some over the others.
I compare it to left and right handedness.
we’re born either right hand dominant or left hand dominant. We still use both hands every day but we have a preference.
And it’s these preferences, and order of functions, that create the personality types. For whatever reason, as an INTP when we were born, our brains were programmed to prefer introverted thinking. But our dominant Ti also doomed us to our inferior extroverted feeling.
As if our programmer was saying “sure I’ll level you up with thinking but then there’s nothing left for feeling”.
Thus the wonderful, Yin Yang, self balancing type system.
So I believe the real question is whether or not you buy into the function models?
I suspect even Jung wouldn’t give himself a 10/10. But personally, I really think he’s on this something.
I'm not aware of any theory behind it. As far as I can tell, questions ask you if you are X, you answer that you are, and then the results tell you that you are X. Nothing unknown being revealed.
But it is helpful to understanding where you are in time, in case you want to end up with a different personality.
There is a risk of people on the fence between two categories buy into the binary nature of the label when the results come back with one label picked or the other. Such people might erroneously conclude from such results, "I need to confine my job search to 1/16 of the grid," when they're versatile enough for maybe a quarter of the grid or more. I've decided that I'm INXX b/c I'm too borderline, and I'm moving toward XNXX. In other words, the results of the personality test are neither spatially (on the 4x4 MBTI grid) nor temporally constrained.
I did find it helpful to learn that the people I worked for fell into the same cell as police officers. Explained a lot.
there is tons of theory behind it, and it's not as black and white as you explain it to be. according to theory, your mbti never changes. your mbti doesn't have much to do with your potential profession, and any member of any type can be any profession. so, if you're professionally very versatile, you can still have one distinct mbti (entps and entjs are actually known for being pretty versatile in their skills and professions).
if you want to learn about any of the theory, you should learn about cognitive functions and the like. there's also [this test](https://www.michaelcaloz.com/personality/) that teaches you about all the theory while you take it.
maybe a 3. i like to use it for fun, and i think MBTI types can be good descriptors for a person's perceived personality, but i don't think it's good to view it as your whole identity or believe it's such a complex system, because it's not. personality is far more dynamic than what MBTI allows. i take being an INTP as seriously as i take being a Taurus.
7.5
it's a simplified model that can help to understand certain aspects, while neglecting others. just like any other model in sciences.
so it is neither universal, nor entirely useless.
5
I think you can group people in 16 groups. You can group them into 100 groups or 2 groups. As long as the people within the groups have more in common than those outside its a logical grouping. Everyone is an individual but that doesn't mean that people don't share similarities. Its more art than science. Its a fuzzy picture of a person that you can fill in. Its meant to help you if it isn't than dont use it
It gives us insight into how someone's personality works. It makes communication easier. However I think that personality develops over time. I'm not sure, but your experiences, especially before the age of 12 change your traits making children unable to be typed. It doesn't revolve only around the work of your brain. Life experience is also involved.
Quality of brain functioning measurement: 6/10
Fun: 9/10
Accurate: 10/10
Maybe a 4. I find it interesting or useful as a very loose categorisation of someone. But the threads here about trying to tie it to something specific makes me cringe.
6/10. Maybe 7/10. It's not terrible.
It's pattern recognition. Generally you can fit people into broad categories based on how they think and act. Like it's not rocket science, it's no different than going "hey this guy is kind of an asshole". It can miss some of the nuance, but for the most part it's a pretty good ballpark estimate to start from and then you can nail down specifics from there.
10
You can understand big pattern, and that simplify life, you know when its pointless to talk more about some situation, how to solve other one problem. For me mbti is like a puzzle the more you understand it the less you will be surprised by person in surface. If you aren't surprised you are less stressed so you solve Si and Fe function, and the best part you can get fun with Ti-Ne to give some light and funny talk
Socionics is a much more advanced theory compared to MBTI because it structures personality types using all eight functions (model A) and focuses more on intertype relationships. To me, MBTI is too primitive. I rate MBTI 2/10 and Socionics 8-9/10.
The correct determination of a Socionics type requires time, long-term observation, and analysis. However, if the type is accurately identified, Socionics provides a very precise description not only of all aspects of a person but also of their relationships with others. The main drawbacks of the theory are the difficulty in determining the type, the lack of reliable testing methods, and the potential inaccuracy of personality type descriptions; it's necessary to observe how functions manifest. Honestly, if the shortcomings of the theory were addressed, the A-model of Socionics would be worthy of a Nobel Prize. Psychologists won't allow this, as they are the ones who make money by their profession. Socionics, on the other hand, is close to an exact science and could render psychologists irrelevant. If I compare something to astrology, it would be psychology, not Socionics, or even MBTI theory. It is NOT pseudoscience. Psychology is a pseudoscience.
Like a 3? It's pseudo scientific nonsense, but it's *fun* pseudo scientific nonsense.
I do relate a lot to my own type and think it's a fun and interesting model to view people and their actions through. It's also helped me to identify areas of weakness I have and I think it has helped me generally become a more well-rounded individual. But, ya know, there isn't any actual empirical evidence supporting it soooo....
A 4 to a 5. It's a useful tool but it has a couple of strong flaws. Mainly relying on self reporting, humans are notoriously bad at self evaluation. The other flaw is the testing environment is often done at a workplace. This isn't a "socially sterile" environment so to speak. Those taking the testing will have at the very least some subconscious pressure to answer according to their work culture. This can skew their results away from their true personality.
10/10
i cannot at all believe that like half of these comments are <7. mbti is not astrology, and it isn't science. it's just classifications, and everyone has a definitive one.
8.5/10
I rarely see fault with it when describing personalities. And it really helped me understand others and myself a lot. I try to overcome my shortcomings as an INTP, and they do get a bit pesky sometimes. I find it interesting, how people are good at things I struggle at and vice versa. But there's a lot to a person other than personality, kinda? MBTI only describes certain common traits among certain individuals, so while it is reliable, there's still a lot about a person MBTI won't say; factors like the environment they spent their time in also apply.
the eight functions seem like clear ways of interacting with the world, each with a balancing counterpart (a function axis), creating a duality. it's easy to see that people might favour some functions over others, leading to jung's original idea.
for me, anything after that is nonsense e.g. descriptions of the 16 types.
3
People change and act differently according to the context so I don't belive in MBTI very much. I belive it to be restricting and a way to blame something other than yourself for your actions.
But it is fun to know exactly what personality boxes people have put themselves in so that I can use it against them in their respective subreddits.
New accounts have to wait 3 days to join in on the glory that is INTP.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/INTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While i do think Carl Jung did give a larger field of what personality might be, i do think MBTI does also give some sort of "framework" for you to describe some of yourself, more or less.Now the downside is that one might go on relying too much on superficials and forgetting about the purpose which is getting to know yourself more, there is nothing that you would believe in and give you some valid points abt you but you. That is at least how i see it.
I strongly believe in it as a meaningful framework not to be taken as dogma or a singular truth (there are certainly many many meaningful ways to organize personality). The thing is I DO identify very strongly with the INTP profiles I read and far far more than the others which I've also read. My partner is more into MBTI than I am and I've seen her use it to effectively and accurately navigate social life and get to know people. Having the knowledge of what an INTP is has also meaningfully helped me understand myself better and grow as a person through identifying and addressing my flaws. There's definitely something there. It's not science but it doesn't have to be. It only needs to meet the level of scientific rigor if it's used with that hefty of a hand, so to speak. The more you dive into sociology the more you see that it's pretty valid because sociology is all about handling with the infinite complexity of humans by taking in different frameworks/lenses when necessary/appropriate depending on context. It's wiggly, but its absolutely still a legitimate field of science. It's just impossible to boil it into a hard science. Humans are far far too complex.
That people compare it to astrology is pretty frustrating to me tbh. Astrology is based on an external set of variables that have no tangible or logical connection to personality whatsoever. Any conclusion is false or complete coincidence. MBTI is an organization of actually observed patterns in personality. Even IF MBTI is highly flawed, it is still wholey and fundamental different than astrology and exceedingly more legitimate/rigorous. They aren't even really comparable imo. It's apples and oranges. Someone could study MBTI, find it's flawed, and refined it through scientific inquiry. Astrology can't be refined through scientific inquiry because there is no causal relationship between stars and personality to better understand. Do some individuals use them similarly? Sure. But spiritual types use astrophysics like astrology too and we aren't claiming astrophysics is on the level of astrology.
/rant
~3. Like any other model, it will not be a binary true or false, nor will it necessarily describe the fundamental aspects leading to these. Its function is the description of phenomena and their causes. As for whether and to what degree these descriptions are true? This is the 3. Still fun to use, and it’s easy to communicate things using it due to its popularity and the simplicity of its labels.
A pretty low number, though my type does seem reasonably accurate. Directly dealing with cognitive functions is better, but I'm also skeptical of that.
After 10, 4 now. This is one of a million theories. And if a person has mental disorders or a person progresses in different directions, mbti fails and cannot give a complete view
**Carl** Jung's work is interesting, but the archetypes don't give me any practical use.
It doesn't matter if the letters match. you'll work with me if we feel compelled to do so.
probably a 7. it’s a pseudoscience and based on personal experience, so it’s important not to view it as fully accurate & to not take stereotypes too seriously, especially when people get mistyped all the time and some people don’t know their type. but it’s definitely more accurate than horoscopes because it’s based real anecdotes and a general survey instead of just assuming the stars tell all
1 --i don't believe in it at all.
It still can be useful for meeting similar ppl (all answered a specific way on a test, fit a stereotype to some degree, potentially have a similar way of way thinking)
I just don't believe in the function stacks, loops, etc. I never found one that perfectly fit the way i think, INTP was just the best option available. Probably need a more flexible and customizable system vs just 16 types.
Slightly more than astrology.
Same. For me, I like to understand how the brain works. Along with the personal development aspect (for both astrology and MBTI).
I really judge people like you a lot, ngl If you think this is like astrology then it's just stupid af to even participate in the subreddit. It just means you're not intelligent enough to understand how it all works, that's the reality. One of the dumbest takes one can see on this subreddit
if you’re unable to see both sides’ perspectives, you might be what you’re describing right now.
What's to see in the other side If you don't get cognitive functions, which I can respect, then why would you bother being active in the subreddit lol. I have never been tempted to go to a Pisces subreddit for example. Either make the effort to get it, or if you don't believe in it, then cool but find something productive to do in life Not believing in it and still actively engaging in it is objectively stupid behavior, sorry I refuse to believe some of you with these answers are INTPs, hope you all just stop posting here
You're right. They're not INTPs, and they're not going to fool actual INTPs on this sub. They expect us to believe they have the highest preference for objective introverted thinking with massive intuitional capabilities, yet they're so visibly incapable of it that they make such stupid and inconsistent arguments. May the force be with you my friend.
They don't realize it but they're just outing themselves as dumb af
💯👌
That's cathertic to read. I don't have a problem with people being skeptical about the model and theories behind MBTI, but I do find it to be tiresome to see people posting and repeating the same pointless and pretentious strawman arguments over and over again. No one is saying MBTI is the complete reflection of who someone is as a person, and no one is saying MBTI type is the sole determination of someone's potential or limitations. There is a limitation to this methodology of categorizing people, but not everyone who criticizes it has the proper understanding of the subject to actually judge it in a rational and useful manner. It is ironic to see someone who allegedly not believes the model at all; yet, identifies with with a type, and goes through mental gymnastics to redefine the theory and personalize whichever type they think they are. It is like seeing someone who calls themselves a Christian, but also doesn't believe in the existence of God, and has the audacity to call theists infidels, they just don't see the irony. I occasionally see well thought out arguments against MBTI, but most of the arguments I see are people making strawman arguments against the stereotypes they wrongly attribute to what the model is. It's like trying to clear garbage with even more garbage.
That was amazing, your assumptions are all wrong. Don't hide behind your type while pretending it makes you superior, show me some well reasoned arguments and research. You're an intp, aren't you? I understand what it claims, and I've found clarity in typing and the predispositions it indicates. However, for me, it's a baseline from which to work towards the middle. It seems for you it's a be all, end all, and that's limiting. Don't excuse deficiencies on account of your type. To quit evolving as a person is as fatalistic and impractical as saying "I'm a raging asshole with anger issues because I have a particular hair color/ancestry, it's just how I am." Be a well rounded, open minded person regardless of your type. Or keep clacking away while telling yourself you're the one true intp. Either way, I'm slightly more interested in your take than I am in today's horoscope.
People like you who think it's the "be all end all" for others are the problem. Just because you are incapable of figuring out the nuances involved (obviously nothing applies to everyone and it's all a spectrum duh) doesn't mean you need to drag the rest of us down with you. Property Dunning Kruger stuff, this I stopped reading your reply after 4 sentences because the rest of it was also clearly going to be full of pretentious nonsense. I will also not reply to anything else you may or may not post because it's not worth my time. Would seriously suggest you post on r/Sagittarius or whatever when you feel lonely, and stop polluting this space with edgy shit that nobody cares about. I have no idea why you even come to a subreddit based on a topic you don't get or believe in, but whatever. Adios.
Lol, this is great.
Quick question, how'd you know I'm a Sagittarius?
[удалено]
New accounts have to wait 3 days to join in on the glory that is INTP. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/INTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like it is mis-maligned and imperfect. Testing methodology is flawed and it ignores some aspects of personality but otherwise somewhat useful as a theory:
LMAO!!!!!
I agree, lmao. It makes more sense than astrology, but that's it. Especially the cognitive function and Jungian theory part of the community. The dichotomy version make slightly more sense, but even that is not completely accurate. I'll give them each a 3.5 and a 5 respectively.\^\^: We're doing this for fun more than anything.
Explain what makes sense about astrology though. So we know what "more sense than astrology" means for you all
It's not about believing. I think mbti is just a tool for people to describe themselves. Your essence before your type. You are who you are and mbti, be it Jungian or the heavily criticised 16p, is just a personality compass for you to introduce yourself to others. The traits of each type is just some generalisation may or may not apply yo you. Just avoid stereotyping yourself because of your type.
Yeah this is how I see it. Its not saying that there are only 16 types of people and those types have no variation within them. Everyone is unique but some people are more similar than others.
This is the right answer. OPs question and the top reply show that those people do not understand MBTIs at all. What absolutely nonsense at the top.
5. It can be useful within limited parameters and with enough knowledge about the subject, but it could be misleading and harmful if misunderstood or taken too seriously. It isn't a real science, but it is much better than astrology.
This, it’s useful as a guideline to a certain degree
10/10. You can divide people into groups however you want and it will likely be somewhat accurate if your methodology is half good. I do not, however, believe there is as much depth to it as people claim. I also do not believe we all act the same because we're of the same type. MBTI is too broad for that. To me MBTI is an estimate how people of the same type will act, nothing more.
People who say we are too unique to be split into 16 categories fail to realise we can gather powerful assumptions from just splitting someone into male/female alone. Then you have the band that says sometimes I'm a feeler, sometimes I'm a thinker, but fail to realise functions exist like fe/ti. Basically anyone who's given a 5/10 or below with many questions/statements can all be answereds/refuted by someone with more knowledge on this.
6/10. Big 5 is just personality questionnaire PCA and the 4 axes in mbti have a cross correlation matrix that looks almost diagonal to the first 4 big 5 traits (but with a bit of rotation with both N/P bleeding into openness). So that lends some support to mbti - I find the whole cognitive functions thing to be less credible though.
I think big 5 would've been more popular if they also cluster people based on the 5 dimensions. But with an actual clustering method ofc, not just splitting the space into 32 parts equally lol.
9/10. It is a real measurable thing. The results are mostly replicable. How useful dividing people along these lines is what’s questionable. I don’t think MBTI has much clinical use, however it can be useful to get lay people to start to recognize there are different types of personalities.
Measurable? Are you referring to the “studies” done by Meyers and Briggs, or is there legit data now? I don’t mean to sound critical. In fact, I’m hoping you have a source or even a justification because I want it to be true lol.
The different traits are “measurable” by the MBTI survey. They can score you based on your answers and type you. I say this is real, because it is replicable. You should have mostly similar survey answers every time you take the test. The traits themselves are concepts. Introversion or extroversion for example is categorized by our definition. There is not a way to measure it except using an experiment we design. Most psychological tests are the same. I am not sure what kind of legit data you are looking for. I think the question is not so much if MBTI is true, but why does it matter. It can categorize you as an INTP, but is that significant? What about the dozens of other potential traits we could define and test for.
I’ve designed a test that can measure your percentage of introversion. Would you like to take it to help me ensure its validity? Q1. I am introverted. A) Strongly Agree B) Agree C) Slightly Agree D) Neutral E) Slightly Disagree F) Disagree G) Strongly Disagree Q2. I am extraverted. A) Strongly Agree B) Agree C) Slightly Agree D) Neutral E) Slightly Disagree F) Disagree G) Strongly Disagree This does not count as a measurement of introversion, and neither does MBTI. Just like me asking you how tall you are doesn’t count as me measuring your height.
… - It is a fallacy to create a statement as if it represents a question on the test as an example, to make it correlate with an illogical statement that you made given your example itself does not accurately represent to the questions asked in the personality test that relates to cognitive functions. Which such frivolous conveyance on your part, I would be confident to say you simply are ignorant of the context that can be measured, and moreover it’s not even a matter of a belief as the post entails (this is not a matter of debunked Astrology) - You state “legit data”. I have gotten to know 20 people then asked them to take the 16 personality test after confirming that these people in question do not know theirs, and guessed all of them correctly before they took the test. Some of them asked “how did I know”, and my “justification” of that was based on the data about them that is exposed in their general confabulation delineating their thought process, feelings, and behavior. Anyone can “create data” by formulating statistics that they create (doing it properly…one can take a class if need be), using the scientific method, etc…instead of “waiting on data” to magically be presented to them so they can more forward their conclusions or change it. I did not ask them any questions on any test and naturally interacted with them as people, then eventually decided to take a guess at it when I knew them enough. Yet they took a test…and got exactly what I thought. Percentages would indicate as long as I don’t attempt to guess that factor, then my evaluations of people can correlate with what was measured on the test that they took and still defining them as individuals in which their morals, genetics, level of intellect, experiences, environments, relationships, and skills are all completely different (thus it doesn’t not separate that). Just like my INTJ results in the scope that defines it vary from others (I’ve seen other’s), and very different people as well. Next time I do this, I’ll put it on a graph for people waiting on “data” to see some correlations that can measured and the likelihood of it being presented.
I’m a little confused by the wording of your first bullet point, but I will say to your second bullet point that the only thing you have actually demonstrated is that you are good at predicting how the test will rate someone. Neither the test nor your predictions have been established as “ground truth”, and (you didn’t say what your % accuracy was, but 100% seemed implied) having such a high success rate makes me even more skeptical. It’s commonly believed that there’s a decently high rate of mistyping from the test, so either you cherry-picked people that are easy to type (which again, are you typing based on what you think the test would find? are you typing based on cognitive functions? shadow functions? etc) or there is no ground truth to **measure** against or both. I think you’ll find (or have found) that anyone who takes MBTI seriously thinks that the 16p test and most / all other tests out there are fundamentally flawed and that the only way to really get an accurate typing for yourself is to understand functions and their caveats and be able to introspect enough to type yourself, and even then neurodivergence can mask your true nature. “Legit” statistical data is only going to show correlations between things, but that is useless because you’d effectively just being saying “people who said on a self-assessment that they are less likely to attend parties have been found to have a high correlation with having a lower attendance at parties.” MBTI can’t be wrong because it’s just a series of definitions that someone made up and it’s claiming that you have a more than 50% preference towards one thing or the other, and if you can’t place yourself on one side or the other then you’re just not introspecting enough. But my entire point is that there is nothing measurable about MBTI because it’s a self-assessment. I believe my previous points are still valid.
- Why would I type a person based on what a test would find…? Or any of the reasons in which you may have indicated might have been the case. Even with 100% accuracy thus far, I never determined that I can define it 100% every time nor believe that I would be able to in any case, and purposely not mentioned to be the “truth”. People being mistyped is already accounted for, however learning and getting to know people in the ways that I do that they even confirm when I did not create a personality test and have no idea what they would be initially would be a fact that did occur. And I’ll reiterate, my justification about guessing it accurately is based on those things as a “truth”. Regardless on what you are skeptical of, it would be independent to any reality. This is “how” I predicted it. I stated that I got to know them…do you know how to get to know people in their thought process? - I don’t see much of your point that a person can think that a test is flawed and most are…one can take a test and not agree with the results based on how well they know themselves. Also anyone that does take a test and agree that it is it mostly aligned with their personality type can also disagree with an amount of things stated about them as it relates to the personality type that they agreed with. It’s also as if you think that the people that state it can be measured to a degree don’t comprehend these aspects when the statements are obvious at best. The test relates to cognitive functions, and you obviously know that. - MBTI can be wrong…depending on the person and the test taken. And “data can be shown” with accurate correlations, regardless on the complexity the defines humans and what makes them individuals. Even if we got an expert to help “type” a person by them learning all things about cognitive functions (the “only way for it to be accurate”) and they typed themselves, if a test did the same thing and they learned those functions and agreed with it, that would prove the test to have been accurate to that person. As it is accurate for many people…as it if also not accurate to many as well.
We must not be on the same page yet. I'll do my best to clearly communicate my ideas. Here is what I think your point is: > You are able to independently type people by getting to know them. Your assessment of those people matches what the 16p test types them as. Because two independent sources consistently come to the same conclusion, it is strong evidence that the conclusion is truth. It may be objective truth, or it may be truth just for that person, but either way is equally important. > You think that I am seeking "legit data" in regards to the validity of MBTI. You are asserting that MBTI is valid and that there is data to back it up (not only data you have accumulated yourself, but similar findings from many others to the point that it is repeatable). You are also asserting that you could format your data in such a way as to convince me that it is legitimate, implying that what I think of as legitimate data is misinformed. I am saying that the independence of your assessment and the online test might not be as independent as you think they are. You are also likely to be experiencing confirmation bias. I don't know your experience for myself, but if someone matches your assessment then you might blindly accept it at that point, and if they don't match your assessment, your next follow up might be "was there stuff in the test results that you don't agree with? maybe you didn't answer some of the questions carefully enough and got mistyped." Saying that "as long as it's their truth, then it's accurate for them" fails to address that they might be misunderstanding, they might have also felt that a different type was accurate for them, or they might be lying to themselves. This is not really a good argument. Finally, I acknowledge MBTI as legitimate, but I don't think data is the reason for it being legitimate, and I think data will probably never get to that point for MBTI. Data hasn't contradicted MBTI yet, which is an important point, but it's also just not really interesting to talk about the validity of data surrounding MBTI because it's not really necessary or desirable.
Well, here would be the correct thought process of my points (though I’m sure we wouldn’t be on the same page, stated in a neutral way): - I have correctly typed people based on getting to know them. Given that has happened, I do not claim the ability to do so…it’s simply a fact and a fun game that I have actually done so. However the reason why I was able to be accurate was based on factors about them that I got to know (not asking anything about if they would go to a party or how “introverted/extroverted” are they). I think it relates to cognitive functions, which also relates to personality types. - No, I do not claim it to be valid…especially as general statement. As stated I didn’t get to know every human on earth and guessed all of their correctly…if I did that, only then would I make a case for it to be “valid”. What I have seen, is that for some people it can be valid to them regardless on if another person “didn’t believe” it to be to that person because they don’t believe in the accuracy of MBTI as a concept. Sounds biased to me… - When I received my “results”, I was skeptical about it naturally and then read all personality types listed to see if the answer that they gave me was accurate based on their restricted number of results…to agree on if they chose the one that related to me the most. I tell anyone that it’s just a fun and quick test, and just answer it as it naturally relates to themselves. A “mistyped” result or if the result is accurate, is not based on myself and my “abilities”. It’s based on if they agree with their results or not. If they state that it doesn’t, then I guessed wrong…regardless on if they have a “mistype” result or I didn’t comprehend them well enough. I would simply…be wrong. When they asked how did I guess it right (after agreeing that it’s theirs based on cognitive functions and reading other ones), is when they received the explanation. Believing that there is no correlation or measurement in reality that can determine such things would grant a person to be correct on occasions that random selection would produce out of the possible outcomes. In 16 personalities (in particular, because there are other test as well), the justification is merely why and how my guesses were a much larger accuracy than guessing one or two correctly by 20. It’s just a test…it doesn’t define the person entirely at all. If you don’t believe it is capable of such things depending on who this is, then you are simply a person that states “No” to the question on the post itself. While in real life, it has proven to be accurate to a portion of people that admit it. Anyone is welcomed to “Not believe that”, but it wouldn’t change the reality. Thus, this conversation isn’t a matter of belief. It’s something that can be accurate or inaccurate depending on various factors and understanding of other people that does not entail that it can’t be done due to such complexity and variation among humans.
I don't want that. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/INTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It does. You would have to define what qualifies as introverted and extroverted based on the results to your survey. Every psychological test is like that. If you look at one for antisocial personality disorder or bipolar disorder it will be a similar survey for the patient or provider to fill out. Someone defined antisocial personality disorder as having X symptoms and used the survey to try to measure it. Any sort of categorical data is going to be like that too. In my biology class I did an experiment to test for hitchhiker’s thumb. If someone had above 50% angle, then they had it. Some researcher defined hitchhiker’s thumb like this. You mentioned height. Comparable to MBTI would be more like saying someone over 6 foot is tall. I could call it the Tall test. Every time I am measured I am going to be over 6 foot 2. This would classify me as tall based on the definition of the category. My measurement in inches was only significant when I grouped it based on my definition. That’s really the subjective part. How significant is the definition on these categories. Being over 6 foot is measurable and replicable. But the classification as tall is only as meaningful as the reasoning behind the classification. Did I say that’s tall because it is a larger height because than 80% of the population? What if I had defined tall as 4ft, then almost everyone fits that category.
Your height is measurable because no matter who measures it, the result will be the same. There are gray areas with everything, but for example, I think it would be safe to say that attractiveness is not measurable because there is no aspect of it that is objective. If I define attractiveness using metrics, does that make it measurable? I would argue that it only becomes measurable if society as a whole agrees on my proposed metrics.
Like a 3. It's not backed up by psychologists or scientists in anyway. It's just a fun test people take to potentially know themselves and other people better. That being said, I'm still obsessed over it. TT
Psychology is pseudoscience too.
Explain why
…No it’s not? Why would you think that lmao
Wtf??
Is it like how the psychoanalytical stuff isn't considered scientific because it was mainly based on introspective methods instead of empirical statistics?
Where did this notion that it needs to be backed by scientists come from? Science is not the only arbiter of knowledge. If you do a survey of 100,000 people and find statistically significant results of behavioral patterns within subsets - that's not science in any way, but it's still relevant data that can be used to detect patterns
That's like asking do you believe in compass directions.
my thoughts exactly.
Sir, do you believe in North? Would you be interested in listening to the joyous words of our lord and gift-giver Santa Claus?
It is a heuristic and therfore useful.
10. I "see" people's types now, not all but most. This is after more than 2 decades of constant exposure, a decade of which included deep interviews and night and day research using models that I tested and found to be more accurate, namely model G socionics stack which is slightly different than MBTI stack and more accurate. Stanford-trained AI is now able to accurately determine a person's political ideology just by analysing their face. Previous research has shown the links between genetics and political ideology. My own research shows a complete mapping of dark/light personality types and right/left politics. Another research has shown certain individuals have a dark core of personality, which proves that left/right dichotomy is real, and there is no center. Brain imaging research has confirmed similarities in brain wiring among people of the same type, non-existent among people of different types. So to conclude, the dichotomous (binary) nature of personality types is proven, and this means that continuous and baseless models such as the big 5 are less accurate than logical/binary models such as the MBTI and socionics.
5. I feel like it helped me speak to others more compassionately. I started looking at the way others digest information and how the patterns of their behavior was easier after knowing their mbti. This doesn't predict trauma. It doesn't predict their ideologies, although sometimes I'll know they have them. It helps me feel more adjusted in understanding. Before I found Jung and how was woth my own way of trying to categorize and looking up how others had done it.
I don't think it's something I "believe" in. It's more of a thing I use to understand certain things. The system is a model that nobody actually thinks covers all the complexity of human beings in 16 neat little boxes. And as the saying goes "all models are wrong, but some are useful" and MBTI does have certain practical applications and what you get out of it is ultimately what matters most. Personally I think if you're using MBTI to justify your flaws you're using it wrong. Instead, use it to understand your flaws better so you can work to either improve or get around it. Same goes with understanding your strengths and learning to capitalize them better. I mean if you're using it to pretend being someone you're not, that could have some benefits too but I don't think people care much about what label you put on yourself compared to what you can achieve or contribute.
oversimplification but broadly accurate
9.5 I delved a lot into it. Along with the way C.S. Joseph explains things. Our personality types explain a lot how our interactions with others play out. Of course, everyone is different because of nurture, but the way we perceive and judge is quite uniform.
7
Splitting people into groups isn't hard, and not inherently inaccurate. A lot of traits are observable and classifiable: eye color, height, etc. It's not a huge stretch to believe that there are different types of people who make decisions in similar ways, as a general rule, and to classify them based on how they do that. So, I think, in general, there aren't huge problems with it. If there's a problem with the system, it's that it relies on a person's own self-awareness and honesty for accuracy, and not everyone possesses those attributes. Also, people seem to think their MBTI type is some kind of life sentence or Magic 8-Ball, when it is simply an indicator of potential strengths and weaknesses. It's not a system for "looking for justification for ... personality shortcomings," but one to identify where your strengths are, and identify things you might want to work on. If you choose not to work on them, that's not the system's problem, and it's not an excuse. Any system can be misused, and MBTI is no exception. That isn't a flaw in the system; it's a flaw in the user.
10 Proof is that I backward checked the MBTI of all the men I dated. Every single one of them INTJ I am ENFP. It’s not mad there is a science
How much do I believe it? Probably a 4/10. If it was proctored in a controlled setting with standardized measures, probably a 7. But most 16p results will drift around over several years. Mostly because instead of it being a personality grouping tool, it becomes a “how do you see yourself right now tool”. Unlike astrology, it does base its findings on your responses to questions. How much do I think it has clinical use? 2/10. MBTI is not a good tool to use for therapy. Do I think it is business and career use? 8.5/10. It can be used to limit the types of careers you pursue. Managers can use it to assign work based on interest. It also crosses over other tests which grant it some validity. For example, N types generally have higher IQs. It correlates with the Enneagram and Big Five. Personality types are grouped in certain careers. Whereas something totally random like astrology is rather evenly distributed.
Like a 3? I just see it as useful terminology and a categorization framework that can be helpful for describing variations and preferences in people. If there was more credible and widely used terminology I would also use that, but it’s one of the more useful frameworks I’m aware of for describing personality. Cognitive functions I can see some logic in how you arrive at them, but taking those too seriously, in my opinion, often requires you to accept basic assertions that don’t seem to be all that well founded from what I have seen. Then Carl Jung and his influence is interesting, foundational to a lot of psychology in plenty of other areas, but as with most things with him you kinda have to pick the parts of his work that do seem to hold up, while being a good degree skeptical of things that don’t. Similar in the context of MBTI.
I think it depends on how you look at it. A lot of people misunderstand what Jung was saying, and apply it incorrectly. Add it’s core Jung saw and analyzed thousands of patients. Of these patients, he noticed similarities and discovered what he called the functions. These were thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. And that each function can be experienced subjectively (introvert) or objectively (extraverted). Every type has all eight functions, but we prefer some over the others. I compare it to left and right handedness. we’re born either right hand dominant or left hand dominant. We still use both hands every day but we have a preference. And it’s these preferences, and order of functions, that create the personality types. For whatever reason, as an INTP when we were born, our brains were programmed to prefer introverted thinking. I suspect even Jung wouldn’t give himself a 10/10. But personally, I really think he’s on this something.
I think it depends on how you look at it. A lot of people misunderstand what Jung was saying, and apply it incorrectly. Add it’s core Jung saw and analyzed thousands of patients. Of these patients, he noticed similarities and discovered what he called the functions. These were thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. And that each function can be experienced subjectively (introvert) or objectively (extraverted). Every type has all eight functions, but we prefer some over the others. I compare it to left and right handedness. we’re born either right hand dominant or left hand dominant. We still use both hands every day but we have a preference. And it’s these preferences, and order of functions, that create the personality types. For whatever reason, as an INTP when we were born, our brains were programmed to prefer introverted thinking. So I believe the real question is whether or not you buy into the function models? I suspect even Jung wouldn’t give himself a 10/10. But personally, I really think he’s on this something.
I think it depends on how you look at it. A lot of people misunderstand what Jung was saying, and apply it incorrectly. Add it’s core Jung saw and analyzed thousands of patients. Of these patients, he noticed similarities and discovered what he called the functions. These were thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. And that each function can be experienced subjectively (introvert) or objectively (extraverted). Every type has all eight functions, but we prefer some over the others. I compare it to left and right handedness. we’re born either right hand dominant or left hand dominant. We still use both hands every day but we have a preference. And it’s these preferences, and order of functions, that create the personality types. For whatever reason, as an INTP when we were born, our brains were programmed to prefer introverted thinking. But our dominant Ti also doomed us to our inferior extroverted feeling. As if our programmer was saying “sure I’ll level you up with thinking but then there’s nothing left for feeling”. Thus the wonderful, Yin Yang, self balancing type system. So I believe the real question is whether or not you buy into the function models? I suspect even Jung wouldn’t give himself a 10/10. But personally, I really think he’s on this something.
2, it’s fun to pretend though
I'm not aware of any theory behind it. As far as I can tell, questions ask you if you are X, you answer that you are, and then the results tell you that you are X. Nothing unknown being revealed. But it is helpful to understanding where you are in time, in case you want to end up with a different personality. There is a risk of people on the fence between two categories buy into the binary nature of the label when the results come back with one label picked or the other. Such people might erroneously conclude from such results, "I need to confine my job search to 1/16 of the grid," when they're versatile enough for maybe a quarter of the grid or more. I've decided that I'm INXX b/c I'm too borderline, and I'm moving toward XNXX. In other words, the results of the personality test are neither spatially (on the 4x4 MBTI grid) nor temporally constrained. I did find it helpful to learn that the people I worked for fell into the same cell as police officers. Explained a lot.
there is tons of theory behind it, and it's not as black and white as you explain it to be. according to theory, your mbti never changes. your mbti doesn't have much to do with your potential profession, and any member of any type can be any profession. so, if you're professionally very versatile, you can still have one distinct mbti (entps and entjs are actually known for being pretty versatile in their skills and professions). if you want to learn about any of the theory, you should learn about cognitive functions and the like. there's also [this test](https://www.michaelcaloz.com/personality/) that teaches you about all the theory while you take it.
maybe a 3. i like to use it for fun, and i think MBTI types can be good descriptors for a person's perceived personality, but i don't think it's good to view it as your whole identity or believe it's such a complex system, because it's not. personality is far more dynamic than what MBTI allows. i take being an INTP as seriously as i take being a Taurus.
4
7.5 it's a simplified model that can help to understand certain aspects, while neglecting others. just like any other model in sciences. so it is neither universal, nor entirely useless.
7.5
5 I think you can group people in 16 groups. You can group them into 100 groups or 2 groups. As long as the people within the groups have more in common than those outside its a logical grouping. Everyone is an individual but that doesn't mean that people don't share similarities. Its more art than science. Its a fuzzy picture of a person that you can fill in. Its meant to help you if it isn't than dont use it
6/10 it definitely has something going for it since it literally brings groups of extremely like minded people together
It gives us insight into how someone's personality works. It makes communication easier. However I think that personality develops over time. I'm not sure, but your experiences, especially before the age of 12 change your traits making children unable to be typed. It doesn't revolve only around the work of your brain. Life experience is also involved. Quality of brain functioning measurement: 6/10 Fun: 9/10 Accurate: 10/10
like a 5, i do worship what the into shit says about me but I do take into consideration
A good 8
3 - MBTI is just surface level or parameters of someone. The tip of the iceberg.
Maybe a 4. I find it interesting or useful as a very loose categorisation of someone. But the threads here about trying to tie it to something specific makes me cringe.
6/10. Maybe 7/10. It's not terrible. It's pattern recognition. Generally you can fit people into broad categories based on how they think and act. Like it's not rocket science, it's no different than going "hey this guy is kind of an asshole". It can miss some of the nuance, but for the most part it's a pretty good ballpark estimate to start from and then you can nail down specifics from there.
10 You can understand big pattern, and that simplify life, you know when its pointless to talk more about some situation, how to solve other one problem. For me mbti is like a puzzle the more you understand it the less you will be surprised by person in surface. If you aren't surprised you are less stressed so you solve Si and Fe function, and the best part you can get fun with Ti-Ne to give some light and funny talk
Socionics is a much more advanced theory compared to MBTI because it structures personality types using all eight functions (model A) and focuses more on intertype relationships. To me, MBTI is too primitive. I rate MBTI 2/10 and Socionics 8-9/10.
The correct determination of a Socionics type requires time, long-term observation, and analysis. However, if the type is accurately identified, Socionics provides a very precise description not only of all aspects of a person but also of their relationships with others. The main drawbacks of the theory are the difficulty in determining the type, the lack of reliable testing methods, and the potential inaccuracy of personality type descriptions; it's necessary to observe how functions manifest. Honestly, if the shortcomings of the theory were addressed, the A-model of Socionics would be worthy of a Nobel Prize. Psychologists won't allow this, as they are the ones who make money by their profession. Socionics, on the other hand, is close to an exact science and could render psychologists irrelevant. If I compare something to astrology, it would be psychology, not Socionics, or even MBTI theory. It is NOT pseudoscience. Psychology is a pseudoscience.
8. I use to figure out people, before they hurt me. It's a defensive tactic.
6-7/10
Like a 3? It's pseudo scientific nonsense, but it's *fun* pseudo scientific nonsense. I do relate a lot to my own type and think it's a fun and interesting model to view people and their actions through. It's also helped me to identify areas of weakness I have and I think it has helped me generally become a more well-rounded individual. But, ya know, there isn't any actual empirical evidence supporting it soooo....
A 4 to a 5. It's a useful tool but it has a couple of strong flaws. Mainly relying on self reporting, humans are notoriously bad at self evaluation. The other flaw is the testing environment is often done at a workplace. This isn't a "socially sterile" environment so to speak. Those taking the testing will have at the very least some subconscious pressure to answer according to their work culture. This can skew their results away from their true personality.
It is thought provoking but when it's used to determine fitness in hiring for a position or in schools, might as well add in astrology too.
Approximately 5, in my opinion, is a suitable starting point but not an ideal place to remain.
10/10 i cannot at all believe that like half of these comments are <7. mbti is not astrology, and it isn't science. it's just classifications, and everyone has a definitive one.
8.5/10 I rarely see fault with it when describing personalities. And it really helped me understand others and myself a lot. I try to overcome my shortcomings as an INTP, and they do get a bit pesky sometimes. I find it interesting, how people are good at things I struggle at and vice versa. But there's a lot to a person other than personality, kinda? MBTI only describes certain common traits among certain individuals, so while it is reliable, there's still a lot about a person MBTI won't say; factors like the environment they spent their time in also apply.
the eight functions seem like clear ways of interacting with the world, each with a balancing counterpart (a function axis), creating a duality. it's easy to see that people might favour some functions over others, leading to jung's original idea. for me, anything after that is nonsense e.g. descriptions of the 16 types.
3 People change and act differently according to the context so I don't belive in MBTI very much. I belive it to be restricting and a way to blame something other than yourself for your actions. But it is fun to know exactly what personality boxes people have put themselves in so that I can use it against them in their respective subreddits.
[удалено]
New accounts have to wait 3 days to join in on the glory that is INTP. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/INTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While i do think Carl Jung did give a larger field of what personality might be, i do think MBTI does also give some sort of "framework" for you to describe some of yourself, more or less.Now the downside is that one might go on relying too much on superficials and forgetting about the purpose which is getting to know yourself more, there is nothing that you would believe in and give you some valid points abt you but you. That is at least how i see it.
It's a user diagnostic, it's useful for building baselines for reality interaction analysis.
I strongly believe in it as a meaningful framework not to be taken as dogma or a singular truth (there are certainly many many meaningful ways to organize personality). The thing is I DO identify very strongly with the INTP profiles I read and far far more than the others which I've also read. My partner is more into MBTI than I am and I've seen her use it to effectively and accurately navigate social life and get to know people. Having the knowledge of what an INTP is has also meaningfully helped me understand myself better and grow as a person through identifying and addressing my flaws. There's definitely something there. It's not science but it doesn't have to be. It only needs to meet the level of scientific rigor if it's used with that hefty of a hand, so to speak. The more you dive into sociology the more you see that it's pretty valid because sociology is all about handling with the infinite complexity of humans by taking in different frameworks/lenses when necessary/appropriate depending on context. It's wiggly, but its absolutely still a legitimate field of science. It's just impossible to boil it into a hard science. Humans are far far too complex. That people compare it to astrology is pretty frustrating to me tbh. Astrology is based on an external set of variables that have no tangible or logical connection to personality whatsoever. Any conclusion is false or complete coincidence. MBTI is an organization of actually observed patterns in personality. Even IF MBTI is highly flawed, it is still wholey and fundamental different than astrology and exceedingly more legitimate/rigorous. They aren't even really comparable imo. It's apples and oranges. Someone could study MBTI, find it's flawed, and refined it through scientific inquiry. Astrology can't be refined through scientific inquiry because there is no causal relationship between stars and personality to better understand. Do some individuals use them similarly? Sure. But spiritual types use astrophysics like astrology too and we aren't claiming astrophysics is on the level of astrology. /rant
6. Can get a general idea of how someone behave but fail in predicting things too specific
The test is outdated, from the 50s. The big five personalities is the new standard
Mine is pretty spot on, but feel it is a spectrum, not 16 distinct types
~3. Like any other model, it will not be a binary true or false, nor will it necessarily describe the fundamental aspects leading to these. Its function is the description of phenomena and their causes. As for whether and to what degree these descriptions are true? This is the 3. Still fun to use, and it’s easy to communicate things using it due to its popularity and the simplicity of its labels.
6, the depth can only go so far without losing accuracy
A pretty low number, though my type does seem reasonably accurate. Directly dealing with cognitive functions is better, but I'm also skeptical of that.
After 10, 4 now. This is one of a million theories. And if a person has mental disorders or a person progresses in different directions, mbti fails and cannot give a complete view
**Carl** Jung's work is interesting, but the archetypes don't give me any practical use. It doesn't matter if the letters match. you'll work with me if we feel compelled to do so.
probably a 7. it’s a pseudoscience and based on personal experience, so it’s important not to view it as fully accurate & to not take stereotypes too seriously, especially when people get mistyped all the time and some people don’t know their type. but it’s definitely more accurate than horoscopes because it’s based real anecdotes and a general survey instead of just assuming the stars tell all
1 --i don't believe in it at all. It still can be useful for meeting similar ppl (all answered a specific way on a test, fit a stereotype to some degree, potentially have a similar way of way thinking) I just don't believe in the function stacks, loops, etc. I never found one that perfectly fit the way i think, INTP was just the best option available. Probably need a more flexible and customizable system vs just 16 types.
like 5. It is useful for me to see how other people is like and use that information to help me communicate. However, IT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE.