|
|
Post by TheAtom on Jan 28, 2016 11:14:25 GMT -5
Oh wow... I didn't know that was still a thing... astrology is too of course so I guess that makes sense. XD I didn't even know we had a central introduction thread. Traces back all the way to 2012, when the glorious SK dynasty had just begun... So... how much value do you guys put in this stuff? Just curious! Hahaha, people love to accuse the MBTI of being like zodiacs and so forth, and though it seems like it would have to be impossible to be empirical, the thing is, it's consistent. You get a consistent picture of a type of person along certain attributes that are general enough that they don't have say everything about you. You could argue that your socioeconomic status meant more than your personality type, and I'd disagree with you, but it'd be a valid argument. But it's consistent in multiple ways. With zodiacs, you don't get a true cohesive picture of a person. It's all over the place because it needs to be, and then people pick out what they like or don't. That's not the case with the MBTI. It's also consistent over a person's life. People get different results when they test themselves over the course of time, but if they knew themselves properly, or understood what the questions were getting at properly, it would be consistent, because as far as official results gained from someone licensed to give the test, people are one type for their entire life. People grow and mature, etc. but their core personality doesn't change, and that's important. As for the value I personally put into it, honestly, there are few things I value more than the MBTI. It has really helped me. My father is an ESTP, and being an INFP child with an ESTP father is... rough... I can't explain to you how helpful it has been in making peace with myself. Without it, I would have believed fully that there is something deeply, and horribly wrong with me. I believe wholeheartedly that personality type colors each and every interaction we ever have on a profound level. The same arguments pop up over and over and over and over again, and it's as clear as day to me that they are based in type. Everyone wants to make others more like them, and they can hardly stop themselves from doing that. Some typologists call it the Pygmalion Project, because everyone thinks that the image of perfection is some vision of themselves, so they chip away at other people, believing they will sculpt them into being more like themselves. Not only does a person's effort to chisel people in their Pygmalion Project fail, and absolutely fail, but it may actually cause damage to the person that they are shaping. So that to me is why the MBTI is insanely important. Also, Atom, I love that you got INFP. I would love if it were true, because I'm an INFP, though with the way you reacted to your description, it's very possible that you tested wrong, but don't feel bad, in my experience, pretty much everyone mistypes early on. Also, INFPs get the reputation of not being logical or rational, but as we mature, we do put a lot of energy into the naturally less-developed parts of ourselves. I actually champion rationality. I know that not being rational was a big problem of mine for a long time, so I guess caring about it so much now is my own sort of balance in life. Some even say that NT/Rational types are a great pairing for the NF types, particularly in romance, and it's probably because of some of the sparks that fly in this area. Anyway, rationality is a rare thing to find anywhere, and it's as important as the idealism that NF types represent, so I find myself sounding like a rational on some level these days, or so I think. Anyways, I have spent absurd amounts of time with this system, and I feel like I have represented that pretty well here, so there you go! Spend some more time with it, and perhaps it will surprise you! If you are an INFP really, it's the richest type of information on the planet. It's consistently pseudoscientific? I don't mean to be rude, or anything, but there is absolutely no scientific basis for any of this. The wikipedia page has enough quotations and references if you really want to get into it, but having seen a couple of them, it seems clear that, while it certainly seems to get some points right (I mean, after answering a whole set of personal answers, you will get to know something about the person) there are a lot of issues with the system itself, postulating dichotomies that really just don't exist. As for what the scientific community thinks of it: Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote that "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie..." (from wikipedia of course). So if you find personal value in the system, I think that's great. It doesn't seem like your life is being led by it either, so in the end, it's all good. And though it may be a bit more scientific than zodiac signs, the fact that it is essentially an extrapolation from a dated (and thus deemed incorrect) psychological theory (of Carl Jung) should be an indication of its status. So again, the fact it has helped you come into understanding with yourself is great, and its status as a pseudoscientific typology of human psychology does not change that of course. |
|
Merow
Sapphire Star
Posts: 39 
|
Post by Merow on Jan 28, 2016 15:33:14 GMT -5
Pseudoscientific... A large number of businesses don't still use it because it's pseudoscience. Again, it is hard to be perfectly empirical when you are dealing with this stuff, but until we start finding general sort of patterns in brain activity on scanners while being stimulated, and empirical studies surrounding that, there is no sense in throwing this in the trash. Many aspects of our brains, as well as variances in our brains, are hardwired. It's just like your phenotype. Nobody argues that there are short people or tall people. Nobody argues that some people run faster because of hereditary traits, though certainly practice and experience help. And with personality, we even have some physical evidence now in various ways that introversion really exists. Some people are disposed to more neuroticism, and some people have more balanced serotonin levels than others. It's a bit more of a stretch, but I think not too many people will argue that things like IQ aren't at least somewhat hereditary. Are they witch doctors? We don't need science to talk about tall people vs. short people, just like we don't need hard science to begin describing general traits. Obviously the MBTI is more responsible than just anyone coming up with their own construct for describing personality. Is there value in seeing that some people are more naturally attuned to the feelings of those around them, and making decisions based on them, while some people are more strictly objective, and that those two types of people are consistently so? I say hell yes! Does a brain scanner have evidence of the existence of the Feeling type in contrast to the Thinking type? Maybe not.
Some of the dichotomies are tougher. I love the iNtuition and Sensing traits, but it's hard to get people to see them, even when they are right in front of them. I think some people are predisposed to being more hands-on and concrete about what information they attend to and how they communicate, versus people more tuned-into general patterns. I see it clearly. It's right there in front of me just like that person's height or hair color. Are there other traits? Of course. Is it perfectly empirical? Maybe not, but it's valuable, and until we are more handy with physical evidence in a person's brain, I don't think we should throw it out.
I think that people are just kind of romantics about their personalities. People want their personality to be this transcendental thing that they have total control over, and can change on their slightest whim. They may not like their body, but at least they can make their personality what they want, or so they want to believe. I think this is why people attack personality typing. We aren't actually beautiful spirit-butterflies, we are physical beings on the inside, and on the outside. I don't know what motivates you to bash on the MBTI, but until I see a better system for describing these things, it has value.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheAtom on Jan 28, 2016 18:19:55 GMT -5
What about turning to modern psychology? Fact is, there's a lot inbetween a dated typology of people's personalities based on an extrapolation of Carl Jung's work and brain scans laying open the foundations of the mind, the possibility of which is not entirely uncontroversial either.
And the dichotomies... well...
"Thus, psychometric assessment research fails to support the concept of type, but rather shows that most people lie near the middle of a continuous curve." (Wikipedia)
Just perhaps read the criticism section of the wikipedia page, and snoop around some of their references. It is regarded as pseudoscience because the 'research' done to prove the theory is done unscientifically (funded and peer reviewed by MBTI funds and advocates themselves, which is basically like asking a fellow Christian to confirm your Christian beliefs), and any other research done scientifically has failed to back up claims made by the MBTI. That's the very definition of pseudoscience and, though admittedly it doesn't place it with zodiacs, it does place it in the same line as parapsychology and similars. It may be helpful in trying to figure out your stuff, but fairy tales can as well, and there is no need for a scientific basis for that to prove helpful. That doesn't make it any more scientific though.
I feel like the further I go here the more annoying I may get, so it may be best to end here, and if you'd really like, continue in PMs.
|
|
