/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10571774
yes it is scientific. myer and briggs won the noble prize

I thought /sci/ was more STEM oriented; I didn't think social science bullshit would get on here. I do find MBTI to be a good tool when analyzing people.

>>10571774

It has low validity but I am INTJ master race

>>10571795
How so?

>>10571803

I don't remember. But I'm a psycfag and I explicitly remember my personality psych professor talking about how MBTI has low validity or reliability or something.

MB is good for looking at what people consider themselves at. Not good at actually determining what people are.

Either way knowing how people view themselves is still a good tool for hiring etc. It's a good way to filter out INTJ people that view themselves as "rational and productive" but are instead just slightly depressed and socially disconnected.

If you are ever asked to name your shit always try to go for ENTP as that has the highest chance of being hired as they think it means you at least try to form social bonds with your colleagues and therefor are a better potential employee.

>>10571774
It's exactly the same bullshit as horoscopes. Each personality type is extremely ambiguously described so the person reading it would think "wow! this so totally applies to me!"

>>10571813
Barnum statements are what you're referring to. MB doesn't typically use them because unlike horoscopes their types are based on a lot of actual information

I'm ENTJ

>>10571807
Personally, I found MB to be a very bad way of seeing how someone views themselves because I frequently see S types mistyping themselves. I see MB as a good way to predict patterns in people.

>>10571774
I'm a capricorn.

>>10571774
Chad INTJ here
Not that it matters though. But it's fun to shitpost about

>>10571774
Myer Briggs is a useless personal assessment system with no scientific backing.

>is it well researched
Not really. Somewhat better than horoscopes, but do you really believe that there are only 16 personality types?

It's easy to game. Just learn qualities of personality types, then you can become anything you choose.

My research career is over

>>10571806
Holy shit, is thos how psych fags really think? Whether or not something is rigorous and reliable can generally be determined a priori just based on ots subject matter and methodology. Its not some obscure, occult phenomenon that someone lile your professor has to investigate and then report back to you on. Myers-brigs is certainly useful in day to day contexts, but the reason it isnt scientifically rigorous is because the type categories are not natural kinds, and the Myers-Briggs system is pruely descriptive on character. On other words its more like a language or a systrm of terms for classifying people rather than a scientific theory that makes predictions based on those classifications.

Im not saying this to be mean, but you really need to familiarize yourself with the scientific method/philosophy of science and develop a better intuitive understanding of these concepts if you expect to have any sort of academic or professional career in psychology or cognitive science or something like that.

>>10572282
Pardon all the typos btw. Im a phonefag.

>>10572282
This is honestly one of the most autistic comments Ive ever seen on this site. Good work at being retarded, Anon.

>>10572282
>On other words its more like a language or a systrm of terms for classifying people rather than a scientific theory that makes predictions based on those classifications.
Nope. It does in fact make predictions, and it is in fact pseud trash. Here's a good write-up of every specific way it's bullshit:
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
Some key takeaways:
A) It has low consistency (people taking the test multiple times in a set period of time often end up with different types).
B) The choice in hypothetical dimensions like thinking / feeling or sensing / intuiting is wrong because they have correlations with each other / aren't actually independent.
C) It also makes the bad assumption there are discrete categorical distinctions (e.g. you will be classified as either thinking or feeling) when in actuality there is no evidence of bimodal distribution in MBTI types and most people score towards the middle and have more in common with those closer to them but in the opposite category than they do with those in their same category.
And even the US military won't touch it:
>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.13 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."

>>10571774
>>10571806
Myers Briggs is astrology for STEM majors.

>>10571816
>based on a lot of actual information
>this is true because it is a fact
Cite your sources or you are personally turning science into a religion.

>>10572338
What do you disagree with, since you're obviously an expert on inferential statistics, probablistic epistemology, and the scientific method?

>>10572646
Do you often find people's eyes glazing over when you speak to them? That's not because you're talking over their heads. It's because you're taking a long time to state obvious facts.

Thou must understand MBTI has not credibility. The Big 5 is much better.

>>10572660
No I dont, and Im not stating "obvious facts". If they were so obvious, then you'd think people wouldn't be make claims like the anon who said that he thought MBTI was unacientific because his professor said it was unreliable. I essentially made three claims (1) That MBTI is not scientific, (2) that one reason it is not scientific is because personality categories in general (and the 16 in particular present in the MBTI system) are not natural kinds, and (3) that even if they were natural kinds it still would be a scientific theory, since it's essentially a taxonomical system.

And as for talking over peoples heads, while there are certainly people smarter and more sucessful in the world of academica than me, you certainly arent one of them. In fact, the mere fact that you described these points as obvious/trivial demonstrates that you dont actually know shit about stuff like knowledge representation, information theory, inferential statistics, the scientific method etc. That's not even my area of expertise (although it is closely related), but even I know enough to know that these aren't trivial issues and if you dont even know enough about the subject to explain what Shannon information, conditional entropy, natural kinds, and predictive vs explanatory adequecy, then youre talking out of your ass.

>>10572703
*still wouldnt be a scientific theory*

*descriptive vs explanatory adequacy*

The women who started MBTI also wrote erotic fan fiction about Carl Jung. Look it up.

>>10571792
how new are you?

>>10572663
>not enneagram
found the pseud

>>10572616
this. And yet some people in the engineering community use it...

>>10572616
>Myers Briggs is astrology for STEM majors.
lol, no. Myers Briggs is for liberal arts majors. And it's beneath astrology, not above it. Astrology at least has a robust longstanding ancient history meriting familiarity with it. And it can even be partially salvaged. You just need to realize despite what fags like Bill Nye try to argue where astrology is wrong because massively distant celestial bodies couldn't possibly have more influence on the lives of people on Earth, that was never a real claim to begin with.
Ancient people used the position of celestial bodies as ways to track time, not because they believed those celestial bodies were themselves causing events. And clearly there is influence from seasonality which ancient people had an OK reason for trying to keep track of given the lack of better alternatives which wouldn't come until much later after some prerequisites to entire new classes of technology became available.
Patrician thinkers like Jung recognized this and instead of blindly following shitty modern bastardizations of astrology like what shows up in a newspaper horoscope or looking down on it as primitive mistakes he took the third option of understanding what all those thousands of years of history were about and what role celestial bodies really played in serving as a convenient time-keeping system. Myers Briggs meanwhile is the shit fan fiction a couple of women with no education or relevant experience made up by extrapolating the most shallow reading of Jung's writings on personality possible and turning it into a 'which anime character are you test kept popular over the years by how it makes people feel like they have a special identity where they're smart and intuitive while the people they don't like are mindless animals, or they're charismatic and born to lead while the other people they encounter are insecure bookworms. Military said it best:
>>10572359
>"The types may simply be an example of stereotypes."

>>10572906
And? This sounds like ad hominem

>>10573920
Not him, but here's your ad hom free point by point explanation for everything wrong with MBTI:
>>10572359
>indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
There isn't really anything right with it.

If INTJ/ENTJ only account for 3.8% of the population, why are they accounting for 100% of 4chan users?

>>10573934
>If INTJ/ENTJ only account for 3.8% of the population, why are they accounting for 100% of 4chan users?
Because MBTI is made up nonsense and most 4chan users are awkward autists who convince themselves they're smart but lazy.

>>10572616
astrology has predictive values if you take your astral card of your birth, which the most likely explanation is the earth season afecting your psychology somehow in your pregancy hormones.

>>10573934
most people are too retarded to google deep weeb darknets like 4chan.

>>10571774
>tfw isfp

>>10572642
Isn't citation just passing the buck at this point? Neither of you have been specific enough in your arguments for something meaningful to be valid addition in terms of research, and even were that to be different it could easily devolve into attacks on the qualities of that research.

Why do you believe what you believe and what warrants allow that belief to be worth arguing over? This is such a crucial part of the understanding process and it's almost always subducted under someone's ego long before anything can be gained. You let yourselves down.

>>10572282

By far the most retarded thing I have ever read on /sci/. The shortcomings and failures of MBPI are well documented and it's more something you do for fun but take with a grain of salt. Just sad.

ENTP master race. INTJ are inferior at communicating information and are therefore inferior at evaluating information. Get fucked nerds

>>10574321
jelly?

>>10574350
INTJs are like ENTPs except they don't have balls.

>>10573934
Opinionated aspies are drawn to this site like flies to a cow turd.

>>10573934
Normalfriends don’t go on 4chan

>>10571807
Yep. You don't want some cowboy loner who's going to be a pain in the ass to work with and be cagey with his expertise. They want people who are going to help others, maintain harmony and be outgoing above all.

INTJs make normies feel insecure. Look how they constantly attack us. They're afraid.

>>10574506
No normies dislike INTJs because they aren't productive members of societies. They always end up as NEETs because they never get hired.

>>10574541
>source: my ass

how the fuck I'm getting ENTP-T while being socially awkward all the time

>tfw INFP

What gun should I kill myself with guys?

>>10571774
INTJ masterrace reporting

>>10572616
Say what you want, but at least Jung's ideas have substance. It's far from being something like astrology.

>>10574821
Jung endorsed astrology:
>>10573918
And MBTI isn't Jung.

>>10574417
More like ENTPs are like kids and INTJs the adults.

>>10574850
Even if Jung endorsed astrology, that's not a solid argument for equating MBTI with astrology.

>>10574947
I said I wouldn't equate the two. Because MBTI is beneath astrology and has no redeemable value.

>>10575038
Why so?

>>10571774
no but it's fun and there's orders of magnitude more people complaining about how it isn't 'real science' than there are people claiming that it is

I'm ENTP

>>10575092
I already linked you to the post:
>>10573918

>>10571783
So? The "noble" prize it is biased. Myers-Briggs is pseudoscience.

>>10575254
>Myers Briggs
They didn't win shit you retard, it was a joke.

>>10575254
They didn't win shit you retard, it was a joke.

ENTJ reporting in

I'm a surgical resident too

>mbti thread on /sci/
lmfao
intp reporting in, not that it matters

>>10571774
>INTJ
You and 80% of this website, myself included.

*NT* > others
ENT* > INT*
*NTP > *NTJ

>>10571774

>>10575902
The difference is nobody is claiming that being born in July makes you INTJ
And it has nothing to do with fortune telling
Those are the reasons why signs are bullshit, not because they are categorizing people by general personality traits.

>>10572231
Brother

>>10575929
>The difference is nobody is claiming that being born in July makes you INTJ
Seasonality is a perfectly reasonable topic to look at, so bringing it up as a negative is non sequitur.
>it has nothing to do with fortune telling
Fortune telling is just another way of saying "makes predictions." And MBTI does make predictions, which it fails at:
>>10572359
>indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
>Those are the reasons why signs are bullshit, not because they are categorizing people by general personality traits.
No. The original Forer effect was literally established through use of a personality test:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160305220420/http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Forer_The%20fallacy%20of%20personal%20validation_1949.pdf
If your attempt at a personality model isn't test-retest reliable (and MBTI isn't), fails the factor analysis test (which MBTI does), doesn't make successful predictions (and MBTI doesn't), and claims categorical distinctions when the actual results have no bimodal distribution (again, something MBTI is guilty of) then it's pretty thoroughly bunk.

>>10575103
> Astrology at least has a robust longstanding ancient history meriting familiarity with it.
Which is not something that confers validity to astrology by itself, specially because it doesn't show why the personality of humans is determined by the month they were born in.

> Ancient people used the position of celestial bodies as ways to track time, not because they believed those celestial bodies were themselves causing events. And clearly there is influence from seasonality which ancient people had an OK reason for trying to keep track of given the lack of better alternatives which wouldn't come until much later after some prerequisites to entire new classes of technology became available.

Why there's a clear influence from seasonality upon personality traits? Care to link any proof?

> (...) and what role celestial bodies really played in serving as a convenient time-keeping system.

There's a big difference between "convenient" time-keeping system and a somewhat valid theory of personality.

> Myers Briggs meanwhile is the shit fan fiction a couple of women with no education or relevant experience made up by extrapolating the most shallow reading of Jung's writings on personality possible and turning it into a 'which anime character are you test kept popular over the years by how it makes people feel like they have a special identity where they're smart and intuitive while the people they don't like are mindless animals, or they're charismatic and born to lead while the other people they encounter are insecure bookworms.

You are not demonstrating why MBTI isn't at all valid. Just showing how the MBTI became shit because of stereotypes.

I know it's le astrology pseudoscience, but I'm INTP masterrace

>>10576299
>a somewhat valid theory of personality
MBTI is not somewhat valid. I'm not sure how much else you need it to fail before you'll consider it invalid. Did you read this?:
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
>Why there's a clear influence from seasonality upon personality traits?
I didn't say there's "a clear influence from seasonality upon personality traits." I said there's clearly an influence from seasonality in the sense of events in general. Seasonality is one of the main things you check for in any forecasting efforts, so it's silly to pretend ancient people were being stupid by trying to see if they could track patterns between seasonality tracked through recurring positions of celestial bodies and the different events they used their astrological systems for.
RE: Personality though, there is at least one known example of a definite relationship with seasonality and it's your relative risk of schizophrenia. The mechanism for that relationship might have something to do with vulnerability to infectious disease changing depending on the season.

>>10571834
me too anon! are we cycling together?

>>10574807
straight bs my dude, INTlets can't muster the gonads to withstand a full frontal assault by an INTP

>>10576403
>the intp cope

Last time I did this autism horoscope (at least a decade ago), I was INFJ. Not bothering to do it again, but that's not a problem, as Jungian archetypes are supposed to be fixed after all.

>>10576403
INTP POWER

>>10571774
ENTP master race. All other types need not continue posting here

>>10572216
that's one thing I definitely believe : people aren't that unique

>MBTI is horoscope meme
/sci/ proving their superior intellect as usual, can't even tell the difference between user input and opposing/exclusive dichotomies against generic descriptions supposed to fit literally everyone.
I'm not going to claim this has any scientific validity, but it's better than any horoscope just by the fact it's actually giving you a personality from your answers as opposed to the fucking birth date and it's at very least empirical (Jungian functions are that)

>>10576547
lol idiot, it's called a horoscope because it has the same function as a horoscope, and in particular it's called the autist horoscope because it has a "scientific" tint to it

>>10574541

>t. seething brainlet

>>10576634
A dog has fundamentally the same function of a cat as a domestic animal, are they the same thing?
No, and actually don't have the same exact functions once you go beyond the surface.

I just said this isn't scientific, but there's a difference between fucking astrology and psychology.

>>10576748
>A dog has fundamentally the same function of a cat as a domestic animal
No! How can you be this daft?
You are a massive retard. Do not reply to me ever again.

>>10576756
Literally my point you retard.

>>10576757
But it isn't. It's the exact opposite of the point.
You are autism personified. No wonder you latch on to a meme so autistically
>WELL ACKSHUALLY YOU SEE CALLING MBTI A HOROSCOPE IS SO TOTALLY WRONG CUS THE FUNDAMENTAL THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE TWO FIELDS ARE SO DIFFERENT YOU SEE ONE IS BASED ON THE POSITIONS OF STARS AND THE OTHER IS SOME WOMEN JUST MAKING SHIT UP SO UMM YES THIS MEME IS BRAINLET IT IS NOT HOROSCOPE CAN YOU PLEASE HAVE SOME ACCURACY IN UR MEMES...

>>10571774
>I'm INTJ
Cringe

>>10576768
Imagine being this triggered about not knowing shit.
Very unscientific to just generalize and dismiss anything based on vaguely resembling something else.

>>10576775
I don't much care about the minute details of bullshit, especially when I'm just memeing. MBTI is autism horoscope, deal with it, tist.

>>10576777
Then stop posting and spread misinformation

It's fun to notice patterns in personalities but I wouldn't take it seriously like they do on r9k. It's soft science

>>10576786
Definitely.
"fun to notice patterns", in Jungian terms I would call you either a dom/aux Ne or Ni user.

>>10576783
All MBTI and psychology nonsense should be banned from /sci/ to not spread misinfo.
But whatever. Imagine being such a bugman rationalist that attacking the evil misinfo of MBTI-horoscope analogies is a hill you're ready to die on.

>>10571795
>it's probably bullshit but I am the best one fyi - just to cover my bases

Fuck off

>>10576797
How so? I literally just said myself "this is not scientific".
How am I spreading misinformation?
Do I need to add this remark on every single post? Got an idea then

>>10576801
Didn't say YOU are spreading misinfo, loser -- just that threads like this should not be on /sci/ at all.
Your "ackshually" spergout over the MBTI-horoscope analogy not being perfect (wow, an analogy that's not perfect, it's almost like analogies are like that by definition) has been very hilarious.

>>10576814
How about you just stop making retarded analogies?

>>10576311
Well, I never advocated that the MBTI is valid. I just said that, despite what the of the current state of the MBTI, Jung's ideas have
substance.
> (...) so it's silly to pretend ancient people were being stupid by trying to see if they could track patterns between seasonality tracked through recurring positions of celestial bodies and the different events they used their astrological systems for.
The problem is that doesn't put astrology over the MBTI though. Astrology an MBTI should compete over the domain of psychology (personality theory), not seasonality and time-keeping systems - unless you have proof that astrology accurately predicts the personality of individuals depending on the month they were born. If you can prove it, then I'll accept that the MBTI is beneath astrology.

>>10571774
intp-t here

>>10576634
That's just a retarted statement. MBTI should be regarded as an horoscope if and only if MBTI satisfies the definition of "horoscope". Clearly, it doesn't so, as the MBTI doesn't predict the personality of humans based upon the position of celestial bodies at the moment of their birth.

You can argue the MBTI is unscientific (implying that necessarily implies it is not valid) and unreliable, but calling it an horoscope is patently idiotic.

>>10575092
>>10575038
He must have tested as an S type

The S stands for asSmad

So Im an INFP T faggot. Thanks for that I'll now head to the nearest corner and cry for 2 weeks.

>>10571774
INTJ's supposedly only make up 2% of the population, but it seems 1/3 or the people on 4chan are.
>why?

>>10571774
>Myers Brigss
I'm ISS

just take a big five and stop taking this test as if it is life-defining. also, you can't really see yourself and what you actually do and how you act, your result is most likely how you want to be seen by others or how you see yourself, not what you actually are. ask for your friends help if you really want to type yourself and look into cognitive functions

>>10577553
>S type
I'm oblivious to my surroundings, can only get from one place to another thanks to modern GPS mapping, failed all the mental rotation parts of standardized testing as a kid, and have worked as a software developer for the past ten years.

>>10571774
MBTI and cognitive functions theories made my autism escalade to unreachable heights. Be careful guys.

>>10577595
Cause that 2% is shitposting here, along with INTPs, INFPs, INFJs, and so on, and this is only one of the reasons.
INxx types are also more likely to find those tests and get interested into them.

>>10571774
entp here based

Why is shit here and not on /x/? Is this board really that fucking retarded?

>>10576798
base-covering intj master race reporting in

>>10577934
What happened

>>10571774
INTP

Myers Briggs is slightly useful for determining career aptitude, and it's kind of fun, but it shouldn't be taken seriously

INFP here, what does it tell me about my career? Can I become a scientist?

>>10578254
Nope, you need the *NT* to be a human being, let alone a scientist.

>>10578254
Maybe in a fake science like psychology or sociology

>>10577719
>just take a big five
literally the same fucking thing wrapped in a different package

>>10578270
>>10578278
basedNTPilled

Guys myer-briggs is fantasy
You can be any type you want