Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

[Anonymous No.10787850]

what is the science behind this? after all it's based on carl jung's work psychological types.

you can do a free test on https://16personalities.com/

[Anonymous No.10787855]

>what is the science behind this?
There isn't any.

[Anonymous No.10787857]

Being INFP as a male is tough. Because it's a female personality

[Anonymous No.10787863]

Jung himself admitted the difficulty of asserting some general objectives within the ultimate subject. And so purposely allowed the definitions to be vague of certain parameters within every man. MBTI bastardised his theory of types into a star sign indicator.

T. Entp btw or in Jungian terms Extroverted Intuitive

I gather you'r Introverted Intuitive?

[Anonymous No.10787868]

>>10787857
No such thing as a female personality anon. You must look past gender to see this in itself as an action's benefits while retaining ones own identity. In other words embrace the opposite, embrace the creative by unification of opposites yet without collapsing into degeneracy as is what often happens when one attempts to unify the un-unifiable for that would be God.

[Anonymous No.10787885]

>>10787857
>Being INFP as a male is tough. Because it's a female personality
I can understand that

>>10787863
>Jung himself admitted the difficulty of asserting some general objectives within the ultimate subject.
true, as far as I know the types were supposed to be used on societal level instead of individual level like MBTI does.

>I gather you'r Introverted Intuitive?
you got me. INFJ checks out.

[Anonymous No.10787899]

>>10787868
I can't understand what you're typing

[Anonymous No.10787987]

Jungian pesudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10788015]

>>10787987
MBTI's theoretical underpinning is Jungian but ultimately it's just a set of four dichotomies and if you don't like Jung, some other theory could easily be slid in as a replacement

[Anonymous No.10788028]

>>10787987
>>10788015
Why do so many people hate Jung? I understand the position that some of his stuff is untrue, but his work is aimed specifically at addressing aspects of humanity that are difficult to answer outside of more speculative, "philosophy of the mind" approaches. I know it isn't really a sci topic, but still.

[Anonymous No.10789063]

>>10788028
People hate soft sciences because if you concede one aspect the right wing takes your arm. The issue is that if you accept psychology then you have to accept IQ which is also a part of that. And by accepting IQ you support race wars.
So just reject all psychology and shit that can't be reproduced like MBTI, Jung and IQ

[Anonymous No.10789087]

>>10788028
I actually admire Jung and his work. I've tested INFP and I find it somewhat fascinating. It's just that we need to move on to more precise theories. In particular, when I find myself confused by the reasoning underlying some of the terms and definitions, I usually just end up becoming more confused than when I started. That's when I usually realize the model is just sort of invented out of thin air.

A much clearer test you can take is based on the Five Factor personality model. Here's a good site to do the test at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/~j5j/IPIP/

[Anonymous No.10789110]

got virtuoso, I got entrepreneur last time

[Anonymous No.10789116]

incidentally, a better site to the MBTI is at the UCLA website: http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

It actually explains some of the underlying Jungian theory as well.

[Anonymous No.10789419]

>>10787885
>true, as far as I know the types were supposed to be used on societal level instead of individual level like MBTI does.
Depends what you mean by that. Jung stated that the nature of the subjective is just that and so there can only be very few generality's such as ego, unconscious, etc, then within such segregation's there is the Jungian typology. He used it with patients just to get a rough understanding of their character and often how they react to the environments. It was used at a social level definitely but he primarily intended to use it for psychoanalysis: say the man is an introvert and relies primarily on his senses to receive information, he then also processes that information say with a preference for an emotional reaction. It's vague and one may sit on any distance between the varying factors but usually one may get a slight idea of a persons character.

For example I am an Extroverted Intuitive as I said before, if Jung new this he would be able to suggest I am somewhat impulsive, charismatic, showing my joking and flirty side before my serious interests within things such as philosophy and art. My intuition (given its nature) is quite vague however we know it has a predisposition and focus towards the outside and so I am good at things like conversation, reading people, inventing and creating anything such as ideas but also physical items - look at Da Vinci as the ideal Extroverted Intuitive. He often forgot about paintings and it took him many years to come back to some inventions because of the impulsive attitude and intuitions extroverted focus of constantly wanting more and more. While say your own introverted intuition is focused within and so your knowledge is of yourself and so no one else understands this. My intuitive knowledge is on the object yours from the subjective. Because of this you also do not understand others.

[Anonymous No.10789444]

>>10787885
>>10789419
Honestly just read Jung's modern man in search of a soul (it's a classic) which is an introduction to Jungian psychology (as long as you know the basics such as what the archetype is or the unconscious) after you've read that short book read Jung's book on types. From here you can really read anything else of Jung's like on the Occult or religion or the collective unconscious.

>>10787899
My bad I thought you were familiar with Jung's archetypes specifically in this case the anima - which is the feminine within the masculine. Just as the animus is the masculine within the feminine. I could write an essay on these two emotive's but I'll leave it to you to research them. Essentially Jung considered individuation as a psychological process of incorporating unconscious content into the conscious light of day. Say you'r introverted, you incorporate the extroversion and perspective to become more well rounded and whole. Often the uniting of the masculine and feminine has sprung forth a sort of creative energy as with the creation of a child. However one cannot merge these two forces physically for we exist within a duality and the physical is the ultimate finite - an inference of say the bio-chemical makeup of a man becoming effeminate would only degenerate him as with a trap or fag. And it collapses into degeneracy and could not be united. The mind however being how flexible it is and immaterial it can incorporate these opposite forces to much larger extent hence Jung's individuation. And so Jung termed the Anima as the archetype of the creative as when one often see's it or becomes aware of it there is a creative product. You can replace mind with the word spirit and individuation is held as what is was known as for so many years - spiritual revelation. Essentially mans duality and all he must unit without collapsing into degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.10789451]

>>10789063
But anon you have to accept there are difference in iq distribution among varying collective - whether say an immediate family with a high intelligence which itself in turn extends to a racial categorisation. I do think there is a lot more to race so for example there is a variance in innate character just with varying immediate family's however that itself is something apart from what we know now - blacks have lower iq's. It doesn't mean they are going to be genocided and killed or treated badly it just means man is a tribal species and must live as such.

[Anonymous No.10789986]

>>10789419
>It was used at a social level definitely but he primarily intended to use it for psychoanalysis
okay, then I might've got that wrong. I definitely see the convenience of such a model, even when it's not perfect. after looking up my type I basically realized the obvious: that there are others who face the same struggles as me. recently after looking into mistypes I ascended from the phase where I think MBTI is the absolute truth to using it just as I'd use any other self-improvement tool. I also started looking into how to type others since it can be a powerful tool for me to understand the outer world.

>While say your own introverted intuition is focused within and so your knowledge is of yourself and so no one else understands this. My intuitive knowledge is on the object yours from the subjective. Because of this you also do not understand others.
you just described my life. even worse, I can feel other's people feeling but have a hard time figuring out what they are thinking.

>Honestly just read Jung's modern man in search of a soul (it's a classic) which is an introduction to Jungian psychology (as long as you know the basics such as what the archetype is or the unconscious) after you've read that short book read Jung's book on types. From here you can really read anything else of Jung's like on the Occult or religion or the collective unconscious.
thanks for your tip, I planned to start directly with psychological types since I were not sure where else to start. also glad that I'm german so I'm reading the source materials, although it seems like modern man in search of a soul is not printed anymore in german.

your posts were quite interesting to read, thanks man

[Anonymous No.10789999]

>>10787850
>what is the science behind this?
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
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."

[Anonymous No.10791058]

>>10789999
>even the US military won't touch it
that says a lot

[Anonymous No.10791066]

>>10787850
Another, I will post something, something, something.. and a link to online iq/personality test so you all can do it and post your result and talk about it thread.
As if I fucking care for your iq or personality, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10791583]

>>10791058
Says alot about the type of society we live in

[Anonymous No.10792247]

>>10789444
Holy fuck calm down

[Anonymous No.10792326]

>>10787857
this is 100% true. Statistically most INFP are female

[Anonymous No.10792368]

>>10792326
can i have a source this is important asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.10792390]

>>10792326
alright i found a primary source from the 90s and you're hella wrong
https://www.capt.org/jpt/pdfFiles/Hammer_A_and_Mitchell_W_Vol_37_2_15.pdf

[Anonymous No.10792403]

>>10787850
>science behind this
None. It's just gathering a large amount information about you and projecting you in a space with several arbitrary axes. Just like autosomal dna sampling this means you get clusteri where you would expect it to. If people answer to a bunch of questions similarly it's reasonable to expect there to be similarities among them. What constitutes the types and how they are described is pretty arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.10792524]

>>10787850
>Psychology
>The test was created by women
>The women who created the test were amateurs who barely had any education
There is no science behind it

[Anonymous No.10792621]

>>10792390
It's not a common personality type but most people that have it are female

[Anonymous No.10792633]

>>10789451
Wow this is the first time I got to see it happen in real time

[Anonymous No.10792643]

>>10788028
Jung was a schizo. He saw ghosts (literally) and wrote whole books on paranormal bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10793446]

>>10788028
because its hip and cool to hate on anything not rigorous enough nowadays. nevermind the fact that none of the haters recommend or make a better test.

[Anonymous No.10793840]

>>10793446
Do you think MBTI holds water?
4 main personalities have been the subject of research for thousands of years