This is the best article against it I have read. What are your opinions?
Is MBTI not pseudo-science?
The spelling errors in that piss me off more than the MBTI types.
This test is so retarded becuase it does not know how to identitfiy the difference between ideology and praactice. For example a staunch moralist (someone who has high christian principles for example) but rigid analytical mind and logician in practice will get skewed inaccurate responses, even Jung said every person is an exception to the rule and labels are problematic
literally all of psychology is a pseudoscience
I think it's a load of faggot shit that should never be brought to attention.
How many digits in your IQ?
I feel like big 5 is better, maybe enneagram too
ive looked at the various personality types and found a commonality in almost every single one in regards to myself, just through that superficial process i know it is flawed lmao
How does that make it flawed? I've never met someone I had nothing in common with in real life
perhaps but only at a temporary level, all traits are subject to change through environment and willfull routine habit, trauma, nurture change etc.
MBTI is definitely pseudoscience, the premise of binary either/or splits in personality factors is bullshit and the test doesn't even have basic self-consistency going for it (people will frequently test as some other type after going back for a second test). It wasn't built through evidence, it was built through the attempt to take Jungian mysticism turn it into a marketable new form of astrology.
if you don't understand how limiting someone to one group when in reality they share compatibility with many is harmful then you have more to chew on in life
It's flawed because that means no matter what results a test gives you you'll probably look at the result type description and think "wow, yeah, that IS what I'm like!"
positive reinforcement correct
But the groups themselves share a collection of functions, the only difference being the order and intro/extro orientation
on a big 5 test it will say i am agreeable because i use etiqutte to disarm people from hostility when in my concealed mind i could care less and only do so to implement a social lubrication to ease the flow of production, i c ould easily be ruthless but i try not to for the sake of humanity, i try very hard, i can change at any moment, man is spectrum
It's not just pseudoscience, it was pseudoscience altered by two journalists for value in entertainment
Although people do change I feel there is a certain consistent pattern to they way in which people interact with the world that varies from person to person. I'm sure it's been studied how personality varies after years of taking the test and it doesn't vary enough not to warrant not studying it
what is hard to understand? to reinforce the idea in the mind of an individual that he has a base setting of behavior of a particular kind when in reality it is a complex flux of different attributes that waver over time depending on his internal vigilance of his behavior and the impact from the environment around him, he doesnt belong to one, he belongs to MANY, so saying he belongs to one is erroneous and harmful, you are a goof
But the MBTI doesn't claim a certain type is characterized by a single function, it creates a unique hierarchy of functions that merely describe their relative importance or role in a persons thinking
oh for sure i agree that big 5 is much more accurate and helpful than mbti but there must an extra sense of caution that one is not imprisoned by his current behavior
there are two types of people in this world, one who tries to find a stable self, one that is aware of his health and production and wishes to stay this one way for the remainder of his life, then there are the ruthless renaissance men, who thrive on refining and growing themselves to be chameleons of all trades and environment, God is perfect and not lacking in anyway, and while likely to fail, we are all invited to be this way, resilient, unfussy, adaptable, perfect
the questioning they use to derive this placement is already inaccurate and unsophisticated therefore the result is incorrect as well, refer here
Better question: is Veeky Forums an INTP board?
Is Veeky Forums an INTP website?
Its a 5w4 website
Where are the fucking doors on this bus??
If it's the Veeky Forums bus, they're there forever.
MBTI is a bastardization of the mostly credible life's work of Jung. Systematizing the Dionysian philosophical teachings of Jung is missing the point entirely. I'm seeing people calling Jung's literature 'mysticism' and 'pseudoscience' ITT but that classification is Not Even Wrong, it doesn't take the assertions that Jung made seriously and attributes claims that he didn't make
addendum: Jung himself said that no man is immutable and a person's nature changes over time, but to claim that generalizations can't be made is to make a fallacy of overspecificity
how does this work
generalizations dont stand because they are inaccurate and do not factor change intently, therefore trivial placebo practice