Is /lit/ into personality?

[Anonymous No.18967210]

what is your mbti and enneagram? socionics is also real nice.

i am an INFP 4w5, i'm pretty sure, and an IEI

>inb4 datamining

[Anonymous No.18967213]

>>18967210
Meyers Briggs has no empirical basis and it was designed as an experiment. Also self-diagnosis doesn't work for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.18967220]

ENFP

Also a Capricorn, if you're interested

And born in the Year of the Tiger

There, there's your fucking datamine

[Anonymous No.18967221]

>>18967213
Wrong on both accounts.

[Anonymous No.18967223]

>>18967210
>INTJ
>sigma male
>he/his or they/them

yeah im thinking based (of myself)

[Anonymous No.18967226]

The only people "into personality" are those lacking one.

[Anonymous No.18967229]

>>18967226
these aren't "personality traits" numb nuts but peoples' cognitive processes

[Anonymous No.18967232]

INTP but i feel like that test is meme shit too

[Anonymous No.18967237]

>>18967232
Is Ti your dominant function?

[Anonymous No.18967239]

>>18967237
i am not sure what you mean

[Anonymous No.18967241]

I always get intj. I think it’s a bunch of pseudoscience bullshit though.

[Anonymous No.18967249]

>>18967241
Probably is.

[Anonymous No.18967250]

>>18967239
Start here. Read the book in the OP
https://mbti-notes.tumblr.com/charts

>ITT: people whose understanding types come from 16 personalities

[Anonymous No.18967254]

>>18967229
>he thinks you can accurately measure cognitive processes by asking college students, "are you logical or not?"

[Anonymous No.18967256]

>>18967250
16p is the reason people shit on mbti.
katharine briggs should have never simplified it.

[Anonymous No.18967259]

>>18967250
Actually this is the correct chart

[Anonymous No.18967265]

>>18967254
Questions like those are pretty shitty questions. Anyway if you have an understanding of how cognitive functions work you can get a pretty good understanding of which ones you have a preference for.

[Anonymous No.18967273]

>>18967250
>all these "types" are "le positive!"
>implying its impossible to have a dysfunctional personality
>mbti doesnt factor neuroticism
>no predictive power whatsoever
leave this women shit on reddit

[Anonymous No.18967274]

[Anonymous No.18967281]

>>18967273
You have no idea what you're talking about. Your understanding of types comes from memes. Neuroticism is also heavily taken account.

Reminder that Jung worked for the OSS and was responsible for writing psychological profiles on Hitler

[Anonymous No.18967284]

>>18967265
Avowed preference =/= actual personality. that doesn't work. That's like asking someone, "do you consider yourself a predominately logical person?" because they answer like this
>hm is that a good thing to be? its good to be logical right?
>yes, sir, that describes me

[Anonymous No.18967285]

>>18967274
Don't take 16p it's just the big 5 in letter dichotomies. Read up on functions, or at least take a test which factors those into account (the results should be taken more as pointers for a place to look than your actual type)

[Anonymous No.18967292]

>>18967284
>"do you consider yourself a predominately logical person?"
I just told you questions like that are not a good way to type people and the best way is to have an understanding of how the cognitive functions work.

[Anonymous No.18967294]

>>18967281
>Neuroticism is also heavily taken account.
Where? Point on this chart WHERE.

[Anonymous No.18967305]

>>18967294
This isn't jung retard i just told you that you have a meme understanding of this system.

[Anonymous No.18967317]

>>18967305
You still haven't pointed out neuroticism. Sensitivity to negative emotion is a HUGE motivator of personality. You don't get to leave it out

[Anonymous No.18967323]

Took the test again. I’m this guy >>18967241 I still think this shit it retarded but I always get the same result so maybe there is something there, but I doubt it’s something substantial.

[Anonymous No.18967331]

>>18967305
Also, the thinking/feeling dichotomy is horseshit, because thinking is motivated by emotions. I mean, seriously.

[Anonymous No.18967333]

>>18967305
Also, not only does MBTI have ZERO predictive power, results aren't even consistent. Guess, what buddy, that mean's it isn't a valid measure of anything. So nevermind the details, because no matter what it's trying to measure, IT CANT.

[Anonymous No.18967370]

>>18967317
Dude, you don't even understand the system. How am I going to explain to you how neuroticism is factored in when you don't even know what I'll be talking about?

Neuroticism in this system comes from when you have to rely on functions which are not your preference/come lower in your function stack. For example, you are put into a situation where you are unable to use your extraverted thinking function and are caught in a loop between your dominant and tertiary function, Ni-Fi, essentially being caught in a loop and being unable to put your vision (Ni) into action (Te), leaving you in an idle and vulnerable state where you are unable to reason.

It's actually quite easy to type neurotic people if you know what to look for.

>>18967323
Don't take 16p

>>18967331
Retard
>>18967333
You are so completely wrong. This isn't dichotomies idiot. You literally have no idea what you're talking about and you're trying to "school" me. Holy shit.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/02/mbti-for-skeptics/amp/

[Anonymous No.18967374]

>>18967370
>Don't take 16p
What should I take

[Anonymous No.18967388]

>>18967370
>Neuroticism in this system comes from when you have to rely on functions which are not your preference/come lower in your function stack
This has never been demonstrated.
Still no predictive power, so it's useless.
MBTI is astrology.

[Anonymous No.18967393]

>all this mbtiplebs
take the socionicspill. NOW.

[Anonymous No.18967397]

>>18967374
Tests are just pointers, you should read up on the cognitive functions and understand how they work.

Some decent ones:

https://www.idrlabs.com/cognitive-function/test.php

https://www.idrlabs.com/test.php

http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

>>18967388
It has predictve power, I even linked you an article that cites studies on the system. There is indeed empirical evidence. You are just talking out of your ass and pulling "gotchas", I have no desire to respond to you or "prove the validity" of MBTI. Leave my thread and goodbye.

https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2013/02/is-jungian-typology-scientific/

[Anonymous No.18967402]

>>18967397
>I have no desire to respond to you or "prove the validity" of MBTI
Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.18967405]

>>18967393
Socionics is a good and more complex system but MBTI is not bad either. People just have a sour taste because of how it was popularized as an alternative to the big 5.

Socionics is a whole different system. There is nothing wrong with combing MBTI, ennagram, and socionics all together to paint a more complete picture.

[Anonymous No.18967410]

>>18967402
You are the one talking out of your ass, mate.

[Anonymous No.18967455]

>>18967388
>MBTI is astrology
Astrology is real therefore MBTI is real.
https://youtu.be/-s03zqjQ8Pw

[Anonymous No.18967464]

Intp 5w4

>>18967370
Have sex

[Anonymous No.18967473]

>>18967464
>intp 5w4 telling me to have sex

[Anonymous No.18967521]

>>18967237
>>18967239
>>18967250
>>18967254
you let the cycle continue by not educating properly

[Anonymous No.18967523]

[Anonymous No.18967527]

>>18967521
I said 16p is a meme

[Anonymous No.18967528]

[Anonymous No.18967531]

[Anonymous No.18967537]

[Anonymous No.18967543]

[Anonymous No.18967548]

[Anonymous No.18967551]

>>18967521
>>18967523
>>18967528
>>18967531
>>18967537
>>18967543
>>18967548
Still no scientific proof

[Anonymous No.18967555]

>>18967551
>Still no scientific proof

[Anonymous No.18967562]

>>18967551
these attributes outlined are definitions, and unless you're coming from some pre-language or ultrapostmodernist schema, things that live up to a definition is 'living proof'
i'm sorry you can't touch it with your hand anon, and i'm sorry it is le unpredictable like the sky magic of weather and meteorology

[Anonymous No.18967566]

>>18967555
Mbti is epitome of s*y
>>18967562
so you're saying it's unfalsifiable?

[Anonymous No.18967571]

>>18967259
not wrong

[Anonymous No.18967576]

>>18967571
>Se inferior and Se trickster become school shooters
>Te and Ne dom adopts fringe political views
>NeFi is normalfag
>ISTP/ESTP are libs
It's not right

[Anonymous No.18967604]

>>18967566
the system lays out that the dimensions of human brainwork can be arranged into 16 set orders of occurrence (or 'function stacks')
these are internal definitions that can be layered upon the external world as a lens - a lens to be seen through and draw findings from afterward. the lens isn't the conclusion itself.
when doing so, the system gives context to both the internal system and external world based on how they relate
unfalsifiable? the lens exists, if you so choose to use it. however, the external behaviors yielded from the internal system are concrete. it's similar to how personality disorders work, only the behaviors to yield a certain archetype don't have to be 'extraordinary' or 'deviant'. we all have these 8 attributes (functions), and so they aren't out of the ordinary at their root. this system is simply for arranging which order they come in. 16 different stacks for an 'order of operation' of sorts. Thinking and Feeling - Deciding - and Sensing and Intuiting - Observing - are experienced by all. but how we decide before what, and how we observe after/before what, is a meaningful study to understand how we all interface with the world we share and inhabit. i'm sorry categories are spooky.

[Anonymous No.18967625]

>>18967604
Still no evidence. Chinese fortune telling is also as sophisticated.

[Anonymous No.18967627]

>>18967210
YUCK imagine sacrificing the irrepitibility of the individual to put people into personality buckets! How uninteresting must the world be for someone who believes they'll only meet the same 16 or so people!

[Anonymous No.18967698]

>>18967627
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.18967733]

>>18967604
I think I'll stick with astrological horoscopes thanks

[Anonymous No.18967736]

>>18967604
Thank you. Helpful and nice prose too.

[Anonymous No.18967764]

>>18967455
Checked. Jung had charts made for all his patients.

[Anonymous No.18968090]

On the other note, where should I start to look if I wanna read Sigmund Freud's works ?