/sci/ - Science & Math

Also general mbti thread because /sci/ seems to enjoy those.

ISTP shit-tier represent

>>4920498
INTP master race

>>4920508
reporting in

another INTP reporting in, but there is nothing scientific about self-administered tests. its biased towards what you want to be

ENTP here

Also, there will always be debates when it comes to methods of categorizing people.

ENTJ master race here. Natural born leader baby

INTP here, even though these tests are not highly accurate, they can be of use to deal with people and yourself.

No. Jung just made it up off the top of his head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Historical_development

It shows how little people care about the next generation when we just lie to them about what they should be.

>>4920560
So it wasn't based on observations and connections between them that Jung had made? Well that made me sad. If you need me, I'll be in /wsg/ finding some cats to laugh at.

>>4920571

>Briggs's daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, added to her mother's typological research, which she would progressively take over entirely. Myers graduated first in her class from Swarthmore College in 1919[1]:xx and wrote the prize-winning mystery novel Murder Yet to Come in 1929 using typological ideas. However, neither Myers nor Briggs were formally educated in psychology, and thus they lacked scientific credentials in the field of psychometric testing.[1]:xiii So Myers apprenticed herself to Edward N. Hay, who was then personnel manager for a large Philadelphia bank and went on to start one of the first successful personnel consulting firms in the U.S. From Hay, Myers learned test construction, scoring, validation, and statistics.[1]:xiii, xx In 1942, the "Briggs-Myers Type Indicator" was created, and the Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944. The indicator changed its name to the modern form (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) in 1956.

>>4920577
Damn, not only was it pulled out of someone's ass it was pulled out of the ass of a female psychologist, now I understand why it's so fucking retarded and pointless.

INTJ reporting in.

God damn it, /sci/, you take this shit seriously, you take IQ seriously, but then all else is pseudoscience to you? Fuck you all.

These internet online testing shit are absolutely useless, unscientific and retarded.

>>4920560
Jung has nothing to do with it. He give a name to things, he defined introverted, intuition, etc. and he considered that some people are inclined to one thing instead of the other, but he would NEVER aprove those tests and the notion the kids have about those terms.

No. It is either pseudoscience or bad science. It is not good science.

Use a proper test. Here is a decent big-five (OCEAN) test: http://www.personal.psu.edu/j5j/IPIP/ipipneo300.htm

You can read on Wikipedia to learn what the various scales and aspects correlate with. There are lots of interesting correlations.

>>4920639
Almost every post discredited this test, don't be mad.

>>4920515
> another INTP reporting in, but there is nothing scientific about self-administered tests. its biased towards what you want to be

Yes there is. Go actually read something about it. Big Five tests are well-validity and pretty reliable, although not as reliable and validated as IQ tests yet.

>>4920639
No one who has studied the subject does not take IQ tests serious. It is the most reliable and validated psychological test ever.

Only a fool does not know something about such an important thing as intelligence.

Go read something introductory, like:

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15(1/2), 25-46.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2002notamystery.pdf

-

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf

-

Robert A. Gordon. (1997) Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, Volume 24, Issue 1, January–February 1997, Pages 203–320.
http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/gordon-1997-everyday-life-as-an-intelligence
-test-effects-of-intelligence-and-intelligence-context.pdf

>>4920666

Wow, you derive all your self worth from online tests.

How tragic.

hey, tell me again why kids take the SAT and not an IQ test to get into college? Because one is worthless and the other is not?

>>4920744
>SAT
>meaning anything practical

>>4920782
do you really think it isn't practical? its damn near the only way to get into a decent college.

>>4920782
IQ means just as much, bro. It gives you a number.

Intelligence and knowledge are not scores nor they can be measured by "ammounts", they are processes and they are only valid words when you put them to use.

I know this test is 'unscientific' but I found it rather very accurate on the description of me

also, INTJ master race reporting in.

>>4920813

And people usually agree with their horoscopes. What is your point?

>>4920827

Whatever. Don't let bullshit tests define you.

>>4920817
I didn't have a point, I just said that it was dot on and everyone else agrees with me. I don't like your fucking attitude kid. :D

>>4920832
ya I guess you're right

>>4920813
edgy

i got ENTJ will i become a field marshal?

Jung made it clear that these traits only have a very loose correlation and could change as easily as someone's mood, attempting to put them together and make more strict classifications only makes them less accurate.

For instance if you feel like strawberry to chocolate 80% of the time and prefer coffee to tea 80% of the time, the chances of you prefering both coffee and strawberry at any given time is 64%, the more loose correlations you use in your little theory the less accurate it becomes. So, while Jung was right to explore these traits it is pseudo-scientific to take it any further.

The biggest problem with psychological type on the internet is that everyone gets the wrong idea about what type actually means. It doesn't mean you can or can't do certain things. You can do or think whatever you want even if your type supposedly never does this or that.

It's supposed to be pared down to the basic process that your mind prefers when it works out any sort of problem. It describes your strengths, but also your weaknesses. Like if you're IxTP, you probably more intellectually independent and are less susceptible to shit like groupthink, but you probably also don't "get" social graces and make a lot of insensitive remarks without even realizing.

>>4920744
>hey, tell me again why kids take the SAT and not an IQ test to get into college? Because one is worthless and the other is not?

SAT tests are basically IQ tests. And studies show that the non-g loaded part of the tests are not predictors of anything.

The reason they are not called IQ-tests is purely political.

You should also refrain from speculations about the psychology of others in debates. That is poor style.

>>4920903
>For instance if you feel like strawberry to chocolate 80% of the time and prefer coffee to tea 80% of the time, the chances of you prefering both coffee and strawberry at any given time is 64%, the more loose correlations you use in your little theory the less accurate it becomes. So, while Jung was right to explore these traits it is pseudo-scientific to take it any further.

No, it isn't. Jung's fault (or whoever) is to not use continuums for what is a continual scale.

Modern tests (big five, IQ, creativity, etc.) use continuums.

>>4920945
So I'm extroverted in the morning, introverted in the middle of the day then extroverted at night. Where am I on the cotinuum?

>>4920975
>So I'm extroverted in the morning, introverted in the middle of the day then extroverted at night. Where am I on the cotinuum?

You aren't.

>>4920945
But modern tests are bullshit...

Good for Jung for not trying to shove a continuum where there is none.

>>4921011
What am I then? I have neither of the traits of an introvert or an extrovert.

>>4921033
What do you think are the traits of introversion and extroversion?

ENTP

I concluded this by multiple tests, but also by reading up on the subject.

>>4921033
Who knows. Take a test. You have not given any data ITT.

ENTP/INTP here, I've been studying it for over a year, helped me a lot in social situations, social engineering and also understanding people better. Very interesting! On the other hand I get annoyed of people a little faster, because if I notice some patterns of certain types(I'm checking you out SJs) I automatically type and I know what to expect, and that makes me sometimes angry even before the other person I typed did anything "wrong", it's just my perception, guess it's making me more stereotypical and biased... Guess it's a gift and a curse, more of a gift,

>>4921033
Its not a black or white, but rather a scale of black to white. Aka scale of introversion to extroversion. If you're very outgoing then you're extroverted. If you're secluded, most likely you're introverted.

>>4921047

That seems crazy, you have just not thought about yourself enough, think about when you feel better? Do you get the energy from talking to people or you get frustrated from big parties and just feel the need to go home and do stuff? Do you like big meetings of people or prefer 1 on 1 talk? Keep in mind that you must think about "normal" circumstances, no strong emotions involved, just your everyday life. If I/E is a problem for you then S/N and T/F is gonna be absolute crazy to type :D.

There are certain types that are considered "ambiverts", who are counted as both introverts and extraverts like ENTP/INTP and ENFJ/INFJ, maybe some other too, but they just seem ambiverted to others, deep down the individual realizes that he is either introvert or extravert.

Other way of typing yourself is to look at Jung cognitive functions, read their descriptions, check what feels best for you, then find a type and try to correlate them together.

>>4921139
The fuck is this shit. People that are 'ambiverts' are just people that are average on the extroversion/introversion scale. Many people are around the average since E is normally distributed.

>>4921271
Why do you feel this need to compress a person's mind into one single word? That's not how psychology works.

This is fluid, these are irregular notions, just tendencies, it can't really be tested and it shouldn't be classified like that. The moment you classify with certainty, you close the gates and you get to that state in which you believe you are what one thing said you were.

>>4921281
>Why do you feel this need to compress a person's mind into one single word? That's not how psychology works.

The fuck am I reading. What does this even mean?

Go read something about personality psychology. Hell, even reading a review paper or two, or Wikipedia might help you get the basics down.

The problem is not whether the theory is scientific, the problem is what the theory actually is.. people have so many different ideas about what Jung meant.

He was just trying to classify consciousness.. or the world for that matter, and his "system" actually happens to make sense to a lot of people.

So I guess that is where the real debate is.. how do YOU classify the consciousness and the world?

>>4921047
Extroverts like groups of people, introverts are apathetic or prefer being alone. What am I missing?
>>4921079
Apparently I'm 70% extrovert.
>>4921109
Even so it's still not accurate enough for 16 combinations of 4 loosely correlated continuums. You could have someone who likes parties (extrovert trait) and reading (introvert trait) and someone who dislikes them both and they will end up with the same level of introversion/extroversion.

How do I determine N/S?

>>4921302
>He was just trying to classify consciousness.. or the world for that matter, and his "system" actually happens to make sense to a lot of people.

Who cares about whether it 'makes sense' to 'a lot of people'.

What matters is whether the theory works, and it doesn't, so ... Yeah.

>>4920508
>INTP master race
>not INTJ

>>4921311
If you had bothered to study the subject, you would have known that modern, advanced big five tests includes some (sub)facets. That makes the results more detailed and more useful to predict stuff (which is what matters), but it also makes the test take longer. For that reason, usually 5-40 item tests are used. They have enough validity and reliability to be useful still, and they allow testing in a short amount of time.

One can do the same for intelligence testing of course.

>>4920817
Come on, you did not just compare this to a horoscope. Yes the types are a bit vague, and they don't work out perfectly for everyone, but horoscopes are beyond fucking retarded.

>>4921294
I'm just talking that it's not about stamping someone in the forehead "you are this" with the name of a personality trait.

And that doing that is dangerous, if not straight harmful.

>>4921547
>Come on, you did not just compare this to a horoscope. Yes the types are a bit vague, and they don't work out perfectly for everyone, but horoscopes are beyond fucking retarded.

Fucking derp. He was mocking MBI by comparing it with horoscopes. Clearly, he is not a proponent of astrology.

Both astrology and MBI is pseudoscience. One of them is still popular on /sci/. Hopefully, no one here actually believes in astrology. Although I have seen some 'depressing' stats among US citizens, even scientists!

>>4921530
All of science is based on what "makes sense" to "a lot of people".

And about if the theory works, it worked for a lot of his patients. So, yeah.

>>4921560
I understood what he meant. You didn't understand what I meant. I was pointing out that while MBI is pseduoscience, astrology isn't even in the same ballpark. Hell I don't even consider it pseudoscience, just bullshit.

>>4921541
>ohboyherewegoAGAIN.bmp

Let's look at some stuff:
>the greatest minds are known to be XNTP
>having P leaves you open to suggestions and expanded thought
>not dickheads

But what do I care, I'm shit-tier ISTP

>>4921555
>I'm just talking that it's not about stamping someone in the forehead "you are this" with the name of a personality trait.

Eh. I hope you don't feel the same when the doctor tells you that you have cancer, or Alzheimer's or, is addicted to amphetamines, etc.

There is no difference in principle between such facts and facts about personality. Both can be measured and some things can be measured well, like intelligence. Personality research is much younger, but is quickly catching up.

>>4921547
>>4921560
Astrology and these tests are exactly like each other because once you see the result, you identify with it and everything will seem to fit.

>>4921571
>I understood what he meant. You didn't understand what I meant. I was pointing out that while MBI is pseduoscience, astrology isn't even in the same ballpark. Hell I don't even consider it pseudoscience, just bullshit.

Pretty much the same. Except that people still openly argue in favor of MBI. There is not much scientific difference.

>>4921565
>All of science is based on what "makes sense" to "a lot of people".

No.

>And about if the theory works, it worked for a lot of his patients. So, yeah.

... You need to actually compare treatments to establish causation. It doesn't work like that. Otherwise we could prove whatever treatment works in psychiatry, since there is a high recovery rate even among obviously useless treatments.

>>4921464
>pls respuendo

>>4921542
If you were given someone's test results what conclusions could you draw from it? There could be any number of reasons why someone has these traits and they could change overnight, in mathematics I have to stick to the facts at hand so I might described as favoring "sensing", in physics I often use thought experiments to imagine what would happen, for example I imagine electric currents as water flowing through a pipe, a capacitor is a water tower with a pressure valve at the bottom, I can quickly grasp a problem this way and it could be described as intuition.

>>4921582
What makes we say a theory is accepted is that it was, above all else, accepted. I'm not challenging the means to get to that acceptance, but just saying.

>If it "makes sense" (read and revised until no one can correct it anymore)
>to "a lot of people" (scientific community, universities, labs, fields...)

Science is, afterall, not about the truth, but about how far we can take our notion of truth so that it comes in terms with what makes sense to us, to what works.

I was half-joking about the fact that his theories works. Just that it's not black and white, it can't be discarded, because the mind is not an easy subject to be tested, it depends on a context other than factors you can segregate from all else.

>>4921579
Only if you're a fucking retard. I recently had my zodiac and palm description read, and it was nothing like me. It was all in good fun, nothing serious, so I thought whatever. I also, long before that, took interest in mbti. I took tests, looked at descriptions, and decided that ISTP suited me best. Now, looking at the descriptions and little quirks between different types, I had determined that I also has some aspects from the other IXTX types. Even though I took this more seriously, I recognized the flaws in the system, the innaccuracies, the fact that it's impossible to segregate all humans into 16 separate personality groups. I still consider myself an ISTP, but I'm not going to have a dogmatic dependency on that description on how I run my life.

But you're right, there are definitely people out there that would fall prey to confirmation bias.

>>4921574
It's not like diagnosing cancer, it's like measuring your blood pressure.

Intelligence can't be measured well at all, the very definitions of it are conflicting. Intelligence is not something you have like an arm, it's something you use, like swinging a bat with your arm. All we can do is test some mental skills and all, but to measure intelligence with a number is just idiotic.

>>4921610
You didn't care for astrology and it didn't work, but you believed mbti is more reasonable and it worked?

That's part of the whole thing. If one doesn't trust the mbti test at all, but cares about astrology, the effects would be contrary to yours.

But I'm not calling you a retard for it. That's a normal reaction. My astrological sign is just like me, while all other signs don't match. That doesn't mean I believe in it, but I can't say I'm not impressed.

>>4921629
>but I can't say I'm not impressed.
you shouldn't be though. it's coincidence, find someone else with your sign and tell me the same is true for them.

>>4921632
Actually, it works for a lot of people I know, with all seriousness. But still, it doesn't make me believe it.

The thing is, ok, it's a coincidence. But isn't it normal to be impressed at coincidences? I'm still impressed, you know.

>>4921629
There was reason behind why I believed MBTI is more reasonable (you aren't tied to some arbitrary, inconsequential thing like birthdate), which is why it was closer to working. But as I said, it wasn't perfect, so I wouldn't say it 'worked', as that implies it was a 100% match.

yes you certainly can sum-up an entire soul with a four letter acronym and a short paragraph description.

no way humans are more complex than that.
>SARCASM SARCASM SARCASM

>MFW people that buy into this crock

>>4921682
>soul

MFW people buy into this crock

>>4921682
Well, if you have 4 letters, and the alphabet has 26 letters, you have 26^4 = 456976 permutations. I'm pretty sure you can categorize most of humanity fairly well if you have that many categories :)

>>4921688
it's a pretty general term.

>>4921603
Personality trait scores do not change wildly overnight. That's what "reliable" means. They are reasonably stable, although they do change with age.

>>4921609
Those are not even nice tries at re-defining phrases. Don't try that trick again. At least, you should have tried something slightly sophisticated, like a no true scotsman.

>Incoherent humanities drivel about stuff.
Yeah, okay.

>>4921610
That's not confirmation bias. It's the Barnum effect. Look it up.

>>4921620
>Intelligence can't be measured well at all, the very definitions of it are conflicting. Intelligence is not something you have like an arm, it's something you use, like swinging a bat with your arm. All we can do is test some mental skills and all, but to measure intelligence with a number is just idiotic.

You are clueless about intelligence research. You should watch your mouth, literally stop espousing falsehoods about it. And then, if you want to talk about it, then you should study it first.

Obviously, I'm not under any illusion that you will actually put in the work required to become knowledgeable.

>>4921649
>There was reason behind why I believed MBTI is more reasonable (you aren't tied to some arbitrary, inconsequential thing like birthdate), which is why it was closer to working. But as I said, it wasn't perfect, so I wouldn't say it 'worked', as that implies it was a 100% match.

Working does not imply a 100% match. What the fuck is wrong with you. Working means that it has validity. To my knowledge, MBI has very poor validity, low reliability, and fails factor analysis tests.

Modern personality tests do not have those problems.

>>4921715
>Modern personality tests

Could you give an example please? Or are you thinking of OCEAN, in which case I plan on looking into later.

>>4921702
What? I was perfectly clear. If you didn't get it is alright, but c'mon.

>>4921834
Big Five. OCEAN is just to remember the name of the scales, Openness to exp, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Notice that sometimes they swap N with ES which is emotional stability, the opposite of N.

Big Five / Five Factor Model is the most commonly used personality test in psychology today, and the most validated.

However, there are other contenders. If you're curious, try looking into general personality factor (1 factor model), and 16PF. Basically, just read all the relevant Wiki articles, and then look into the papers + books that seem good.

-

Of course, these factors are not the only thing to a personality. There are a lot of other tests, but they are generally not as well-tested. Tests for creativity, psychology, dark triad, various rationality tests.

And of course intelligence tests. Although I wasn't including them under "personality tests" although they arguably should belong there.

>Is there evidence and proof for this system?

Is there evidence and proof for the Zodiac?

although it is true certain patterns can be monitored, human behaviour is generally far too complex to ever be predicted with any certainty.

people that like these kind of things are the same people that like IQ, trophies and medals

>INTJ
>Mastermind

feels good being master race

>>4921930
>although it is true certain patterns can be monitored, human behaviour is generally far too complex to ever be predicted with any certainty.

Nonsense. It is easy to predict populations behavior with intelligence tests. In the future, it will be easier with more complete mappings of personality as well.

>people that like these kind of things are the same people that like IQ, trophies and medals

Hurr fucking durr.

ITT:

>"MBTI is pseudoscience bullshit, a test cannot measure your personality and interests"

>90% of /sci/ is either INTP or INTJ

Is INTP lazy?

>>4922046
pretty much

>>4922056
Let's just call it pensive or visionary.

>2012
>Not being an OPERATOR

Yes, I'm sure every celebrity everywhere lined up uto enter themselves into a database for this, so you can compare yourself to them

>INTJ
>Mastermind
>Master
>Master race

Aquarius master race here.

Imaginative and futuristic. Highly intuive.

Fuck yeah.

What? you may as well ask if there is evidence and proof of Linnean Taxonomy. Its just a labeling system. Nobody's claiming its magic.

INTP here, in my younger years i was more intelligent than the rest, had a lot of creativity and wanted to investigate about everything.

Now i'm just a wasted potential who dropped college and have a shitty job.

Feels weird man

>>4922121
Hi me. How's it going?

>>4922046
I think we just lack of real motivations, we don't plan anything and just act on impulse. We change our minds so easily, most of the time we don't even know what do we want.

>>4922119
This.

I think of this system as NOT a label for people, but instead as labels describing different sets of commonly grouped personality traits.

If you choose to use those sets as a description of yourself then that's fine, but it's no more accurate than if you just said "durrr. I like thinking about stuffs abstractly".

It's self assigned, it's just a quick way to communicate to someone how you might describe yourself.
Or alternatively, the tests will just ask you questions (which is basically you describing yourself) and mach that to one of the sets of personalities.

It's not difinitive... I wouldn't even really call it science.
Is it an effective tool for communicating? I think so. Especially since if you read some of the personality profiles it words the traits in much better way than I probably ever could, so it helps people know what you're talking about.

>>4922141
>>4922119
Problem is that /sci/ hates anything that doesn't match their rigor, they go "prove it" for every little shit you say as if that helped the conversation in any way.
>>>/x/ derp

And then when it's about themselves, oh it's just fine, we are just talking.

>>4922148
But it doesn't need proof if it's defined that way.

Just take INTP for example, and say:
>>Define INTP as the set of traits etc, etc, etc...

That's all. Once that definition is in place the only thing left to argue about is how people choose to apply it.
You could say "prove you are INTP" or something. But the system itself is just a grouping of personality traits, so there's nothing about it to argue over.

Only one other ENTP here? For shame guys, for shame.

>>4922165
I am certainly fine with that. Except many more things don't need to be proven either, simply because they are, by definition as you said, out of the scope of our rigor. Linguistic problem, philosophical issues, ideas, sensations, which can certainly be talked about, but with nothing to argue on the matter of "proofs".

All I'm noticing is the inconsistency of /sci/ on that matter, a special treatment for selfish reasons. Not accusing you, no. Just thinking out loud.

The question is whether those groupings of traits are actually seen. Yes they are. There's a great deal of consistency in how people interact with the world that is well described by the MBTI.

The real question of interest is where doesn't it apply? How doesn't it? Why doesn't it? And if there be a legible and formal answer to that, that answer will be illuminating.

The foremost problem is that of using binary relations to describe a continuum. I personally suspect that ones personality will vary in different situations and relations, for example depending on the people you're with.

I think people taking the test usually don't have an interest in skewing the outcome, but do actually take pride in their chosen strategies or personality: The descriptions of MBTI types are as opposed to astrological types very intimate so that if you read one not pertaining to your personality you're bound to take objection.

There may exist a vested interest in attaining a certain personality label: "I heard ENTJ is good so I'll try to get that". Ironically that's probably exactly the sort of thing an ENTJ would do. It may not be the perfect example.

Nope, it's a heap of shit and a scam, on par with numerology and the horsocope.

For people ITT saying ''hurt I found it fits me well''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html

At the end of the day it's not even soft science, it's pseudo science. Not an ounce of validity, I'm sorry charlatans.

>>4920639

Yes, thank you. This board loves to worship the IQ test and then turn around and act like this one is based on nothing. They are both based off of nothing.

If you find some marginal benefit from figuring out how your personality is charted out, then cool, but don't let everything you do be defined by your IQ score and which MBTI type you are.

"Oh no, I'm only a 110 ENFJ so I could never become a scientist/genius/nonfaggot"

There's no proof, it's theoretical typing.

People who don't get their personality tested by a psychologist very often get it wrong (web based tests are extremely flawed because people overestimate their ability to judge their own personality). Also, people who 'feel' they fit into one type often (usually) don't.

Specifically, and as can be witnessed in this thread, it is INCREDIBLY common for people to type themselves as INJT's and INTP's, thinking it fits them perfectly (as I did - turns out I'm evaluated by psychologists as ISTP - though this typing is only a novelty to me).

INTJ's and INTP's are very rare, and very easy to mistake in self diagnosis. But you're different I suppose..

>>4920497
ENTP here. Personally I'd prefer a system which introduces a multi-dimensional personality space. In this pseudocontinuos space the personality types are defined by the variation of densities of the personalities (every personality is a point in this personality space). If for instance we find that around a certain point we find a of high personality density we might label these people as "Thinkers", "Healers", "Performers" or whatever kind of cultural stereotype we associate with them. The advantage of such a system would be that it kills the psychological illusion of fate which is given by the Myer-Briggs test. It also would allow us to investigate to which degree the cultural stereotypes of personalities we perceive translate into other cultures. Will we find that personalities from different cultures group around the same points as in our culture?

Humans are far more diverse than this, you can not simply classify them into a few different categories like that.
This system is vague, and does not show you the entire truth; it can only be used as a guide.

That being said, I come out as ESFJ

>NT - God Tier
>Anything else that isn't SJ - Mid Tier
>SJ - Shit tier
>ESTJ - Scumbag tier

Irrefutable

Let me quotte something I read here, on /sci/, a while ago:

"Funny how Schizoid is extremely rare, but people online seem to have it all the time."

Don't self-type.

>>4922266
Many linguistics and philosophical things can be proven in the math sense of "proof".

Yes, /sci/ is being inconsistent in its love of pseudoscientific personality theories, and its hatred of psychology. Makes no sense. /sci/ is full of retards.

>>4922946
>web based tests are extremely flawed because people overestimate their ability to judge their own personality

Web tests are the same as nonweb tests, you imbecile. And one can do cross rating validity tests and those yield adequate results.

>>4923109
>Personally I'd prefer a system which introduces a multi-dimensional personality space.

You mean, like in the actual tests used by psychologists now a days? Well, fuck. Do some research ffs.

INTJ/ISTJ depending on the test.

Did someone say enneagram?

Jung was no scientist. Psychology can only been taken seriously since the Behaviorists elevated it to scientific levels. Before that, Psychology was merely making random stuff up that appealed to anyone. Also known as superstition.

MBTI is no more scientific than zodiac signs. The sign itself does not tell you much about the person in front of you; the fact that he believes in it speaks volume though.

>>4924776
Agreed.

To those interested. Read the skepdic link posted earlier. It has a lot of quotes from Jung, showing off his lack of scientific ability.

actually, the MBTI is not as good of a personality indicator since it limits personality into 16 possibilities only. However, tests like the WPAY or "which pokemon are you" allow for more specific results

I hate this system.
INFP? I am not a kind, loving, valuing person.
I've also gotten INTP when I've taken it (my thinking/feeling is dead on at 50%). That doesn't match me either.

>>4924563
oh you

I think the stereotypes themselves are pretty sound, it's the testing method that is the problem.

Example:

"Do you like to hang out people a lot? Yes or no?"

Hanging out with a lot of people doesn't make you a feeler or a thinker, nor does it make you an extrovert or an introvert. An ENTP could say that he hates it, and an ISTJ could say that he can deal with it.

I got ENFP the first time, but I'm not nearly as "selfless" as they describe this type. I'm actually an ENTP.

And even then, the only thing you get out of this test is looking up a bunch of awesome people who MAY have had your same type. It's like trading cards without the trading.

Stupid. Doesn't account for brain plasticity. Glaring oversight.