Is MBTI not pseudo-science?

Emberfire
Emberfire

This is the best article against it I have read. What are your opinions?

humanguide.org/images/Documents/pdf/Personality_Testing_Gladwell_eng.pdf

Attached: MsseMLbAXwkBwu-GEMTvpWux-e7Ug0mA2dxKlS3Gs4E.jpg (177 KB, 1024x764)

All urls found in this thread:

humanguide.org/images/Documents/pdf/Personality_Testing_Gladwell_eng.pdf

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

The spelling errors in that piss me off more than the MBTI types.
t. intj

WebTool
WebTool

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

DeathDog
DeathDog

literally all of psychology is a pseudoscience

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

I think it's a load of faggot shit that should never be brought to attention.

Attached: 1521668522297.jpg (88 KB, 800x600)

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

t. intj
How many digits in your IQ?

Attached: expanding-brain4.png (30 KB, 372x300)

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

I feel like big 5 is better, maybe enneagram too

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

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

Supergrass
Supergrass

How does that make it flawed? I've never met someone I had nothing in common with in real life

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

perhaps but only at a temporary level, all traits are subject to change through environment and willfull routine habit, trauma, nurture change etc.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

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.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

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

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

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!"

Booteefool
Booteefool

facts

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

positive reinforcement correct

Soft_member
Soft_member

But the groups themselves share a collection of functions, the only difference being the order and intro/extro orientation

happy_sad
happy_sad

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

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

It's not just pseudoscience, it was pseudoscience altered by two journalists for value in entertainment

w8t4u
w8t4u

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

likme
likme

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

TreeEater
TreeEater

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

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

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

Evilember
Evilember

the questioning they use to derive this placement is already inaccurate and unsophisticated therefore the result is incorrect as well, refer here

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

Better question: is Veeky Forums an INTP board?

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Is Veeky Forums an INTP website?

Playboyize
Playboyize

Its a 5w4 website

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

Where are the fucking doors on this bus??

happy_sad
happy_sad

hunh?

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

Attached: Enneagram-Stress-n-Relax.jpg (42 KB, 502x604)

Bidwell
Bidwell

If it's the Veeky Forums bus, they're there forever.

TreeEater
TreeEater

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

Attached: 1521837295007.jpg (116 KB, 500x500)

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

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

Attached: 1521914517961.png (738 KB, 960x960)

takes2long
takes2long

how does this work

massdebater
massdebater

generalizations dont stand because they are inaccurate and do not factor change intently, therefore trivial placebo practice

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit