INFJ here. How does it feel you will never be as good of a writer as me?

Pisces is redpilled as fuck

Infp and born in December. I've never known happiness

heh, try swallowing the INTP pill, kiddo

with the form your questions take, it looks like their content is questionable, and easily discarded.

not so fast greenhorn, stick em up

There are no INFJ girls

all infj boys are secretly infj girls

INF/TP. Next Joyce here. Bask in my radiance.

E-slash-I ... I'm both. That rapist shit I only do on the wkends... ... ....

MBTI is complete nonsense that was literally made up by two housewives that read a book by Jung once, and no serious psychologist uses it

t. someone with a degree in pyschology

i don't care about being good at shit unfortunately

>someone with a degree in pyschology

Lmao who cares

MBTI is for poor people who couldn’t afford the Mensa subscription

>believing in feel-good pseudoscience

>t. someone with a degree in pyschology
more like
t. someone with a doctorate in getting fuckin baited on

>Infinite Jest here

Huh?
Usually we just use IJ

>describing peoples personalities in terms of cognitive tendencies is pseudo-science

It has zero empirical validity. The constructs aren't real.

Big Five is what actual psychologist use to measure personality.

INTJ

Go ahead and start making jokes at my expense.

>It has zero empirical validity

They're merely descriptive categories, how could they be "empirically valid"?
You're comparing apples and oranges here the Big5 only functions experimentally because it leaves all description to the subjects rather than taking up any hermeneutic agency of its own (except for its arbitrary and teleological bracketing of the (five) categories)

INFJ's are just completely insufferable, right? You have all of my personal flaws, but without my entertaining spontaneity. What a fucking drag.

So then how do you confront the notion that people of certain MBTI types correlate with people of certain big 5 makeups

It's a useful tool for some patients. Academics are too excited to throw out Jung and anyone who associates with him.
t. actual therapist

For one, the MBTI has little to know test-retest validity. You can give someone the test a week apart, and they'll get different results. Personality, by definition, is something that does not change on a regular basis.

INFJs don't have personality flaws

Jung isn't the problem. The problem is that they didn't study Jung seriously, they were two housewives that read one of his books.
It doesn't. Half the people who take the test won't get the same result twice.

That's an issue with the tests not the categories. Afterall it just becomes a disguised means of asking patients to self diagnose which will undermine any legitimate system
An analyst will be able to identify subjects consistently

The categories and their utility are not reliant on the test. MBTI has use in one on one sessions.

Any attempt to categorize humans with binary options is inherently flawed, and to pretend it isn't shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The categories are based on completely unproven hypotheses.

How on earth does that matter
The test blllloooowwwsss

That doesn't make the descriptors or the system invalid.

Further, the categories themselves are flawed, and rely on binary choices that fail to represent any actual humans.

Do you have issue with the categories themselves. Surely you don't see a problem with describing someone as introverted or extroverted as a generalization. What about the others?
It seems clear as day to me that different people do have clear tendencies to analyze their given context in specific ways. Favoring certain details, thinking in certain directions.
Do you oppose any attempt to have a descriptive system for these tendencies without falling back on the merely associative linguistic approach of the Big 5 which is extremely limiting when it comes to ubderstanding cognition

>They're merely descriptive categories, how could they be "empirically valid"?

They were created using factor analysis.

MBTI does not have any sort of rigorous methodology behind it. Its categories are not going to be terribly useful if they don't exist as actual patterns in the world.

>using the fact that an argument has been made as a counter argument to the argument
could you be more dishonest?

But I do. No one is completely introverted or extroverted. It is not a binary choice, it is a spectrum.

>Any attempt to categorize humans with binary options is inherently flawed

Give me a fucking break. Tall, short. Fat, thin. Hair, bald.
Sure there's always grey areas in between but don't act as if binary descriptors are not necessary and useful

A choice that is axially defined on a binary.
Christ you're fucking daft.

Maybe not for general use, but someone's actual weight is infinitely more useful than "fat or thin," and by limiting it to those two options, you ignore large swathes of people. What about bodybuilders, for example? Are they fat or thin?

But the MBTI doesn't give any option than "Completely introverted" or "completely extroverted," and ignores the vast majority of the population that falls in the middle.

>INFJs don't have personality flaws
I know - that would require first having a personality.

Oh golly, we found a grey area. Guess we can never help people with anorexia or obesity now

This

Personality traits are normally distributed in the population. Most people are actually ambiverts.

The point is, why use a test that only allows for anorexics or obese people when others exist that account for the people in between?

> ignores the vast majority of the population that falls in the middle.

Mere conjecture. Anyway it provides all the area for ambiguity you need, what you're saying is equivalent to declaring compasses useless because of all the degrees between North and South. Without firm binaries of direction there is no possibility of coordination between them

No, because compasses can point to those degrees between North and South, the MBTI can't. A compass that only has North and South marked is less useful than one that has the degrees between marked.

The MBTI is fundamentally flawed, based on unproven theories, invented by housewives with no psychological training, and is no longer used by the majority of the psychological community. I have no idea why you feel the need to defend it.

I'm not saying that introversion or extroversion don't exist, just that a test that only gives those two extremes as options is flawed.

>the MBTI can't

Yes it can, why would you assume otherwise?
You may be identified according to your nearest matching code but there is nothing preventing one from displaying category results in a non-discreet form

Like, most Psychology journals won't even print results if you used the MBTI. It is literally only used by HR people because they get paid to give it to people.

Then what use is the code? Why use a binary test when others exist? Why won't you answer this question I've asked multiple times?

Can someone give me details on an INFJ?

You're saying the people who have to deal with real world consequences of their analysis utilize the system while the fact the poorly regarded discipline of psychology doesn't allow it means anything

The psycholgists from the company that publishes the test DON'T EVEN USE IT because they don't find it academically sound.

I have no idea what is being discussed here can someone educate a fag porfavor?

>Then what use is the code

It provides a hermeneutically useful descriptive system for the cognitive tendencies of any given individual.

No, people use it because they get paid to. It is literally meaningless. But you just keep ignoring the points you can't argue against, so I think you may just be baiting.
Keep ignoring the important questions, dude.
The MBTI is a personality test that is used by many businesses, despite being completely worthless.

The use of a system to any given organization and its use among individual analysts are separate questions. Why they would feel it appropriate to apply to their needs or inappropriate is not mine to judge

That would be true if people got the same results when they took the test more than once. They don't, though, so it's meaningless.

No, it's theirs. I didn't make up that they think it isn't academically sound.

No I'm afraid you're the one who just keeps repeating yourself. Claiming the test is useless without providing any criticism that can't be applied to literally any attempt to describe a subjects personality

Answer this question, please:
Why use a test that restricts results to a binary, when tests that don't do so exist?

That speaks about the tests not the categories themselves. Any personality test is going to be subject to patients whims and the economic limits of time and effort expected of them.

Also, why are you lying about my arguments? There are tests that have test-retest reliability, and there are tests that give more than a binary result. These criticisms cannot be applied to "literally any attempt to describe a subjects personality."

Except the test doesn't restrict patients to binary, if you look at how the results are calculated you'll find it very explicitly operates on a continuous scale.
The categories exist as a means of allowing comparisons between types but the system is in no way relient to such a behavior.

Tests that have test-retest reliability exist. Stop pretending they don't. There is also only one test that has those categories as a result, so for the categories to be useful, you need to show me a solid test that uses them.

People don't score very consistently on the big 5 either. It's actually fucking amazing that the big 5 test asks individuals to self-assess their own intelligence (openness). At least nothing on the MBTI is inarguably/universally desirable.

>There are tests that have test-retest reliability

Not anywhere near complete reliability that's simply impossible without going to extreme or expensive lengths

Why are you defending this test? Do you work for CPP? No serious journal will let you use it.

I laugh you consider any psychology journal to be "serious"

I never claimed complete reliability. But a test with 50% reliability is particularly bad, and there are tests that are better.

Do you believe it is impossible to develop an MBTI test which has higher reliability? Is there anything in the categories themselves to suggest such a thing as infeasible?

>Openness is intelligence
Confirmed you have no idea what you're talking about.
It isn't AN MBTI, it is THE MBTI, and is owned and administered by CPP for profit. You seriously have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

No I'm afraid it is you who are confused here. My interest is in the categories themselves not a particular instanciation of them. Why on Earth would I care about a particular institutions deployment in a merely theoretical discussion

>journals run by scientists are not serious but a personality model developed by a housewife and her daughter is trustworthy

Because they developed the categories? They literally don't exist outside the MBTI. I think you're just assmad that you can't lord your MBTI over people anymore.

>psychologists
>scientists

Come on man

5/10 I replied

I'm not kidding, you're seriously stretching the bounds of the term scientist here. Are you going to tell me economists are scientists too?

What you're saying is ludicrous. You can find ideas developed from an organization useful without being dependent on the organization itself thereafter

Soft sciences are still sciences. People who pretend any conclusion by psychologists is as solid as a geologist is stupid, but that doesn't make psychology completely invalid.

Please, tell any psychologist that you want to categorize people into 16 rigid categories. I'll wait while they laugh you out of the room.

>le psychologists aren't scientists meme

because we know MBTI adherents care a lot about science

>You can find ideas developed by a housewife and her daughter useful without being dependent on the housewife and her daughter themselves thereafter
FTFY

Coming from the people that promulgate CBT I won't be phased

Wait, so you don't believe the thing with evidence, but believe the thing invented by a housewife?

>Soft sciences are still sciences

Psychology barely even qualifies as a soft science much less science. Meterology is a soft science, psychology is a hobby

>confirmed for having no idea what you're talking about
Openness is encapsulated by and regularly described as aesthetic sensitivity, active imagination, and intellectual curiosity... Whilst this is obviously not identical to intelligence as a concept of raw reasoning and problem solving ability, i don't see how you could argue for the divorce of Openness, as a psychometric trait, with a strong association to intellect.

I didn't say they weren't related, my point was that someone self assessing their curiosity or imagination is completely different than assessing their intelligence, and you were being disingenuous to imply they were the same thing.

>Meterology is a soft science

the absolute state of Veeky Forums

>R: 98 / I: 8
I'm leaving this board and never returning.