Does Veeky Forums think the Briggs Myers 16 personality types are bullshit or accurate/insightful?

I've done it four times in the past few years and always get INTP. I was diagnosed with aspergers in 8th grade so the whole "introverted and logical" bit makes sense.

It means you're a sperglord.

Utter bullshit and new-age pseudoscience.
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf

Despite this: it's taken very seriously by some companies. Not uncommon to have to take one of these tests and go to some bullshit workshop to learn how to interact better with other types.

>Psychology
>Not bullshit

Wew lad

>The MBTI was developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katherine Briggs. Katherine Briggs became interested in type theory after reading Carl Jung's book, Psychological Type. Isabel Briggs Myers shared her mother's interest in type theory and began to create the MBTI in the early l940s as a test to be used for personnel selection.

Note that "type theory", as with everything else Jung wrote, is utterly discredited academically.Note also that Katherine and Isabel were not scientist or psychologists, they were lay persons (I think one was a nurse or midwife).

>Relation Between MBTI Type and Occupation. Many people have examined the relation between type and occupation by examining the proportions of type within each profession. For example, one might observe that many elementary teachers are ESTJs and conclude that ESTJs prefer to be elementary school teachers or to work in a related occupation. Although it sounds appealing, such a conclusion runs into many fundamental problems.
>First, we need to examine the normative data to judge the relation between type and profession. For example, the proportion of ESTJs in the teaching profession is the same as the proportion of ESTJs in the general population, or 12 percent. This similarity suggest that there is nothing special about the type of person who becomes an elementary school teacher.

Suffice it to say, the same non-pattern emerges whatever career you examine. MBTI has zero (0) correlation with occupation.

Yeah well, I think I got a huge promotion partly based on some retarded IQ test, so no complaints here.

IQ tests aren't retarded, unlike MBTI there is substantial empirical data supporting them.

>taken very seriously by some companies

I had a boss who believed in horoscopes. Just because someone is successful, it doesn't mean they're not an idiot.

>In a recent review of the MBTI, commissioned by the Army Research Institute, it was concluded that the instrument should not be used for career planning counseling. The Institute's analysis of the available research showed no evidence for the utility of the test. Indeed, with respect to career planning they note that "the types may simply be an example of stereotypes."
>no evidence for the utility of the test

In general psychological tests are borderline made up on the spot and have too little support and theory behind them to take them seriously.
MBTI is no exception, it's based on 1930 shit Jung wrote and Jung (and Freud and other meme names) while influential at the time has been largely abandoned. It was also made during a hippie period of psychology which was by far one of the most retarded shit to ever happen.
MBTI is mostly a pop culture garbage, especially its modern use. People treat it as a way to be a super special snowflake with all those positive qualities or as a way to find soulmates.
In practice just because you fit into a certain type doesn't mean any of your qualities are well developed or or that you'll like your alternative. And the types and testing itself is pretty poorly made.
I know I'm INTP and I'm mentally substandard dopamine addicted human garbage and not an "innovative inventor"

amazon.com/Cult-Personality-Testing-Miseducate-Misunderstand/dp/0743280725

This is a pretty decent book that goes over MBTI and some of the other personality tests and why they don't work.
>tfw i've got a psych degree and it made me really really hate it
Fucking garbage """science"""

Every single credible researcher calls it nonsense

But yea yea, you won't believe it anyway because magic Jung and unqualified bored housewives know better

Well, companies want easy, standarized ways to screen shitton of employees really quick. Of course they'd fall for the snake oil.
Especially considering that it's hard to actually tell the number of actual bad fits within the company, so it looks like the tests are working when they aren't doing shit.

IQ tests are actually the only reproducible psychometric that has EVER been produced.

when people say iq is invalid simply because it's imperfect, they're going full Lysenko-communist.

they used to execute botanists for believing in evolution instead of the "official" soviet biology.

>In general psychological tests are borderline made up on the spot and have too little support and theory behind them to take them seriously.

Pop-psych tests on OKcupid are bogus, but there are many psychometric surveys that have extremely high levels of predictive power. Jung was writing 100 years ago, modern psychology is nothing like what it was in his day.

>MBTI is mostly a pop culture garbage

Mostly? MBTI is a fan theory about the brainfart of a drug-addled hack fraud.

>IQ tests are actually the only reproducible psychometric that has EVER been produced

Nope, they were probably the first to do so but there are many surveys that are very accurate, you don't find them on the interbutts because they're used to diagnose mental illness and psychopathy and shit like that, typically in a clinical setting.

Also, if people want a personality test they can take online that IS supported by scientific evidence, there's the OCEAN / "Big Five" test,many versions of whihc are found online.

>for believing in evolution instead of the "official" soviet biology.
Wasn't their thing that evolution happened, but that you could inherit parental traits relatively easily?

i.e. if you grow a plant in the snow, it's seeds will inherently be more resistant to cold because that's the environment the parent grew up in (without factoring that the plants which are less resistant to snow die off.) and thus this is transferred.

Or for a more human example, if your parents worked out a lot and their parents and theirs before did the same, you'd get exponentially more Veeky Forums with each set of offspring because that parental trait was passed on as a result of a retained adaptation from the parents, instead of a genetic predisposition one way or the other.

I dont know what you were trying to prove with the bullshit you just said but it is not how evolution works retard.

That's Lamarckian evolution, the other user is talking about Lysenkoism.

>Wasn't their thing that...
Reading is hard, huh?

basically this

I have my master's in psych and it's essentially a degree in advanced faggotry

>The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism built on Lamarckian concepts of the heritability of acquired characteristics.[2] Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the "gene"; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[3] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that "natural cooperation" was observed in nature as opposed to "natural selection".[3] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.

>I have my master's in psych

Sure you do user.

>Their thing

Totally specific on what you are trying to say. Completely clear on who "they" are and what their "thing" is. Why no one could ever get confused when you are talking about multiple groups of people with your mastery of the English language.

Writing is hard, huh?

mental diagnoses are not reproducible. you can have several doctors agree on criteria, and you can always find people who fit that criteria, but that's not reproducibility.

reproducibility is having the majority of clinicians reach a similar conclusion with mental patients the way they do with physical diseases.

THAT is what the field is lacking

also, you're correct, the big 5 seems to be a strong basis for classifying neurological traits, but it's still not reproducible. worse for it, in terms of research, is that it's not applicable to clinical practice, so its development gets ignored.
lamarckian change is not evolution. the soviets sanctioned lamarckian biolog and literally KILLED darwinian evolutionists

Are you really this stupid? Learn how to follow a discussion you retarded faggot.

Learn how to clarify who and what you are talking about in the future little cunt.

>mental diagnoses are not reproducible. you can have several doctors agree on criteria, and you can always find people who fit that criteria, but that's not reproducibility.
>reproducibility is having the majority of clinicians reach a similar conclusion with mental patients the way they do with physical diseases

This happens in clinical psychology. You seem to think it's voodoo, it's not. Misdiagnosis does happen but it's rare, in large part thanks to the surveys developed by research psychologists.

>also, you're correct, the big 5 seems to be a strong basis for classifying neurological traits, but it's still not reproducible

It's a typology not an experiment, it's based on empirical evidence and is generally considered very accurate.

>in terms of research, is that it's not applicable to clinical practice, so its development gets ignored.

Not all psychology is clinical, "Big Five" is being actively developed.

End yourself you halfwit. I'm not even the faggot you were arguing with, but if you couldn't understand what user wrote (and you clearly couldn't) then you are too stupid to post on Veeky Forums. Go back to plebbit you waste of skin.

> Being this mad due to lack of own writing skills.

Like I said it wasn't me who made that post about soviet pseudoscience, I merely understood it and pointed out to you that you didn't. All the rage ITT since then has been provided by your butthurt. kys my friend.

Not the same person who posted. Your writing just sucks.

>Not the same person who posted.

Kek if you say so

>Your writing just sucks.

I'm not the one who wrote it, so okay.

you seem to think it's not voodoo.

the most commonly developed treatments for the most common diseases can't even meet alpha.

the only treatments that ever meet alpha are very specific and well understood neurological disorders such as schizophrenia.

the rest of the field doesn't even PRETEND to need to meet alpha.

that's why there's the reproducibility crisis.

you sayng that voodoo is not voodoo just makes you look ignorant.

>big 5
yes, it probably is accurate. but probably does not replace the NEED for a science to have solid methods and pathways.

there's a VERY good reason neurology has left psychology in the dust. it's because psychologists are fucking retards who just make excuses and refuse to acknowledge the very hard limitations of the field

>clinical vs theory
I know. and I'm not saying that it needs to be immediately clinical. what I'm saying is tha clinical and theorical branches are both morally bankrupt, and neither have a good history of ever developing anything useful.

99% of the advances in the field come from neurologists, of whom there are too few to establish practices. then psychologists give each other high fives and say "heh, I knew we were right all along."

Kek if you say so.

You're talking about psychiatry not psychology. Psychologists don't design or prescribe drugs of any kind, they do research in labs or "in the field".

>yes, it probably is accurate. but probably does not replace the NEED for a science to have solid methods and pathways.

How do you think "Big Five" was created? It's the result of decades of psychological study of personality gathering data from which these patterns can be gleaned. If psychology didn't work, "big five" would be no more accurate than MTBI.

>there's a VERY good reason neurology has left psychology in the dust.

What? Most neuro people doing research rather than surgery are neuropsychologists, the two fields are converging not replacing one another.

>I know. and I'm not saying that it needs to be immediately clinical. what I'm saying is tha clinical and theorical branches are both morally bankrupt, and neither have a good history of ever developing anything useful.

But you just said "big five" and IQ tests are accurate, make your mind up. Also since you're lumping psychiatric medicine in to the "do nothing" camp, I take it you don't think anti-depressants or anti-psychotics work?

It's okay user, I believe you :^)

>converging
converging means that neurologists are taking up your mantle and basically ignoring everything you've done for the last 40 years.

big five is one of the standout accomplishments of the field. but not only is it not practicable, or applicable in generalized situations (which is the GOAL of science) it's also fucking pathetic in reference to what other sciences have developed. you have a fucking half-finished art fair project that you're trying to apss off as science.

the more idiots like you champion these kinds of accomplishments, the more hte rest of us realize you're just built a fucking cargo cult around and effigy of science.

>drugs
anti-psychotics generally meet alpha because their pathways and diseases they treat are very specific and very well understood mechanically.

the same cannot be said of anti-depressants.

this seems to be a common one on here

INTP and INTJ are vastly over represented on chans.

>converging means that neurologists are taking up your mantle and basically ignoring everything you've done for the last 40 years.

No, converging means psychologists are increasingly also neurologists, and vice versa. The two disciplines complement one another and will form a future "science of consciousness" much as the seemingly unrelated phenomena of electricity and magnetism converged, they each study the same problem from different ends.

Also I am not a psychologist, by training I am a physicist.

>big five is one of the standout accomplishments of the field.

Nonsense, you are just ignorant of the field and are afflicted with Dunning-Kruger's effect.

>anti-psychotics generally meet alpha because their pathways and diseases they treat are very specific and very well understood mechanically.
>the same cannot be said of anti-depressants.

Yes it can, again, you are woefully ignorant of the facts. Dopamine pathways are well understood, as are the mechanisms underlying countless other highly effective psychiatric medications.

According to the theory they should be, but according to every analogous study done they won't be. MBTI has zero (0) correlation with reality.

psychologists have a legal monopoly on clinical practice. of course that gives them an edge in terms of "wow people are totally learning the field."

no to be rude, but are you fucking stupid?

>thing doesn't meet alpha in clinical trials
>prescribed off label
>we understand exactly how it works, it just isn't behaving the way we thought on paper
>science
completely wew

>no to be rude, but are you fucking stupid?
That's a good one, im going to remember that one.

You'd have to be fucking stupid to not see this as basic personality categorization.

I have some bad news for you...

Once again, psychiatric medicine is not psychology. As a field of medicine, it is not interested in being a science. It makes use of scientific advances the same way regular medicine does but their focus is not "doing science" but "fixing broken parts", and in this area psychiatric medicine has advanced a huge amount since the 1950's, contrary to your apparent beliefs.

psychiatry and psychology both use fucking flawed and unproven models. both have a casual or outright dismissive attitude towards meeting apha if it discounts theory.

the "broken parts" model was teh successor to the chemical imbalance model. it's really curious that they're BOTH wrong. I'm sure something else will crop up to replace their need for a asystem that eschews things like evidence.

again, neither the "parts" model nor the "imbalance" model explain things such as neurons adapting to chemical doses over periods.

oh wait, NEURONS?!

wow, neurologists figured it out pretty fast. maybe that's because it's an actual science.

I have around of ten years of experience with post-Jungian typologies, but I deeply disappointed with that field. In it's core, they have some legitimately pretty good and insightful even if somewhat lightly formulated for broad audience ideas about minds, behaviors, relationships, even society. But for one reason or another, genuine effort to base all of the important insights on more scientific grounds fails most of the time. It isn't the worst part of the field, as what really ruins it are two things. Firstly, very subculture revolving around such matter naturally tends to be both autistic retarded, etc. Whatever buzzword you can imagine, you can just stick to it and you wouldn't be wrong. I could spend days to categorize all cancerous trends here, but that would be too heart breaking for me. The second worst part is how unreliable the majority of most current applications. For example, popular tests are known for being a jokes. I mean even by the humanitarian standard. The practices, that went beyond that, are even more speculative in effect and mechanism behind them. Basically without proper guidance, if you dive into this mess then you could archive a results only by very autistic borderline scientific work with (mostly a bullshit) sources, the divine miracle of uncontested luck, professional psychological experience, or some other fucking bullshit that makes you practically the chosen one of typology. By proper guidance, of course, I mean the people who are competent at least in basic neuroscience and not the some kind of self-proclaiming gurus or "great experts", who got zero actual creditability or backgrounds whatsoever. Well, if you good enough to step up beyond all of this shit, than you will reach pretty deep, elegant and reliable conceptual framework.

You're a moron if you're going to deny facts

if you're pretty far down the career ladder in psych, you probably never recieved proper schooling in bureaucracy

do some reading along the lines of weber or the iron law of oligarchy. whenever something is bureaucratized, it advances the needs of bureaucrats, rather than truth, or the general good.

this is one of the key insights of adam smith as well.

if relationships and status interactions are not based on objective criteria or voluntary relations, and instead become coercive, the most direct method to power is to simply create problems in the bureaucracy, then YOU solve the problems, and your power revolves around solving the problems you yourself have causd, that of course, no one else can do anything about.

this is why heavily centralized systems of all kinds fail.

this is why psychology is fucking awful.

> zodiac tier
Don't be so strict, it is clearly alchemy tier.

...go on.

And yet most of us here are INTP...

kill yourself retard

what else am I supposed to say?

psych disciplines are cargo cult science. neurology is a real science, which is why it explains things.

if you have a specific question I can answer it

> it explains things
Like what things? Care to name one?

it explains the 2 year tolerance response to ALL chemical intervention, as I already described above. which neither the parts nor imbalance theories could ever do. they just brushed it under the rug for 20 years.

neurology explains reactive adaptations to trauma almost perfectly, as well as violent escalation processes, as well as addiction. meanwhile standard psych models can't even reliably decrease addiction, and psych intervention actually has teh tendency to INCREASE violent responses in patients as well as famously increasing successful suicide attempts in patients immediately following treatment.

the pattern holds for almost EVERYTHING that the three fields examine in tandem. the only things that psych really ever did was figure out major psychopathy, such as schizophrenia. which was like, 40 years ago, now.

this is interesting, i usually get ENTJ or sometimes ENTP but never ENFJ

But, I've been working on being less of an asshole to people and being more social, so I guess my opinions about the world are reflected in that

Coolio

>2016
>not being a communist

Worker's rights, fucks.

Forgot image

I don't see myself fall under any of those categories. The stupid acronym personality thing wildly differ and is generally never the same for me.

It's not very useful, but I wouldn't say it's complete bogus.

Unlike astrology and other superstitions, the Mayers Briggs test is capable of making accurate and specific predictions of peoples personality. You can actually see that different social groups will very predictably fall into certain personality types (f.ex. Gamers tend to be both more intuitive and Introverted than the rest of the population, although the latter shouldn't be a surprise).

Of course it's not THAT accurate and individuals can get different results over time, and there's usually always some overlap.

It's not very useful to make a sweeping personal profiling but under the right circumstances, it can be pretty accurate. It's something you can share with your friends or maybe start a conversation but you shouldn't base your decisions on it.

Zodiac for atheists.

It's just for fun m8

also "& humanities" was a mistake

*pagans

>lamarckian change is not evolution
Yes it fucking is. It's not natural selection.

you're a retard

Great contribution to the discussion!

better dead than red

>being an autist faggot on a chan board

holy shit my sides

Astrology has more basis in reality than MBTI. Seasonal differences in personality as tracked in ancient times through use of the night sky as a sort of natural calendar / clock are plausible and potentially explained in terms of people born during winter months being more likely to contract subtle brain diseases (e.g. schizophrenia diagnoses are known to follow birth seasonality patterns). MBTI is literally just muh feels.

ENTP type is objectively the best type.

[spoiler]i know because im in it desu[/spoiler]

not Veeky Forums

sage

Any psychological test that would shove you full-on into a category for answering 51% one way versus 49% the other is pretty retarded.