There are probably reasons for that. It's so the rest of the community can have a say and be able to review the findings of those who absolutely think they are right before they have a chance to implement their ideas. There have been problems with that sort of thing in history.
How MBTI Works
- Thread starter barbad0s
- Start date
There are probably reasons for that. It's so the rest of the community can have a say and be able to review the findings of those who absolutely think they are right before they have a chance to implement their ideas. There have been problems with that sort of thing in history.
I am not sure why you feel you need to state this. I feel as if there is an assumption based on a statement I made that's being taken out of context. (Based on the use of a partial quote of what I stated.)
NOTE: I apologize if I somehow sound dickish to anyone. I feel as if I am being backed into a corner. I do not mean to be a douche.
Last edited:
Lul it's okay I don't think you did. I quoted you for that because I thought you might have been getting ahead of yourself with your confidence in your ideas. No need to feel bitter about some form of regulation needed before theories are accepted. It may take a long time, but these methods have likely saved us from lots of other ideas that could have been useless or harmful towards the world.
I understand what you mean about lots of "empirical evidence" being collected from self-reporting.
I don't know what more to say on this topic. Somewhat lost now. Maybe I can accept a theory based off of soft evidence. I just wish there was proof for when it was developed, that the evidence was collected in some sort of methodical or more objective way.
I think that even though MBTI is a pretty fun thing with some good insights into human psyche, however, there's no way that there are only 16 personality types. I think it's still very basic and simplified. Everyone is different, however, in some way we could be the same, but I find it virtually impossible to split the mankind into these categories..
My advise is not take it too seriously, don't get crazy and intense over it. It's just a pretty dated hypothesis, which I do find way better than just splitting people into Extraverts and Introverts, which in itself can't be true. People switch roles a lot according to the circumstances.. At work and among casual friends I am the extravert, laughing, magnetic character, when I am at home or with family I am very introverted and only the fact that it's easier for me to be Introverted than Extroverted my first MBTI's letter is "I."
My advise is not take it too seriously, don't get crazy and intense over it. It's just a pretty dated hypothesis, which I do find way better than just splitting people into Extraverts and Introverts, which in itself can't be true. People switch roles a lot according to the circumstances.. At work and among casual friends I am the extravert, laughing, magnetic character, when I am at home or with family I am very introverted and only the fact that it's easier for me to be Introverted than Extroverted my first MBTI's letter is "I."
Shaqie
The Grandmaster in Disguise
MBTI makes sense, just don't be quick to assume that there are 16 models of human beings, that come shipped from the factory. Each one of us has a history that shapes us in one way or another, your preferences for usage of imagination, logic, emotions
and spacial awareness is a completely different thing.
and spacial awareness is a completely different thing.
This is not directly in reply to you [MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION], only musings triggered by your comments.
I found this while searching the Psychology database at my University. There is no online version of the document:
Author: Gorlow
Title: An empirical investigation of the Jungian typology.
Source: British journal of social and clinical psychology [0007-1293] yr:1966 vol:5 iss:2 pg:108-117
Here is another article found on a google search: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x48022tmx43377p6/
Dario Nardi's stuff.
There is research out there. Jung based it on his own observations. The evidence was stored within his own mind. Other people sought to prove it.
----------------------------------
EDIT2: Oh whatever. I'll put it up anyway. I should not fear judgment.
I am bitter because my 'theory' is based on existing and accepted treatments, I just want them to look at it in a different way. I dislike having to develop expertise greater than the experts to prove it. They are the experts. If they looked at their knowledge and understanding from the viewpoint I want to share, they will see it and can prove it if necessary. It's far too inefficient to make me do it for them. I am up against a vast amount of known and collected information across 100s of years and across multiple disciplines. I have put together tidbits of information and treatments that span all these disciplines and more: Medicine, Psychiatry, Psychology, Sociology, Nutrition, Religion, Literature, History, Education, Physical Education, and probably more that I cannot think of. That is a lot for one man to do. My goal is to help people in the most effective, efficient and safest way possible (and without drugs or a lifetime of therapy!), not prove myself to a bunch of academics, scientists, and doctors.
The point of MBTI, for me in all of this, is that all of these researchers seem to assume that every human being is built the same way and should function the same way, but what if there are 16 different ways? Or at the very least, consider more than one? A lot of research is based on correlations, probabilities, and statistics. 51%, 67%, 75% are percentages that are not good enough. What if we could get within the high 80s or 90s in degree of accuracy? Or what about finding 100% statistics that prove causality instead of correlation?
All of these scientific findings that everyone seems to put their faith in, have created a huge mess and a massive butterfly effect of a web throughout all research and practice in Psychology. I might sound like an over-confident crazy person, but if I could find at least one consistent person/method somewhere to help me to learn how to translate my trapped non-verbal understanding into verbal language that people would understand, then I could explain the supporting details better instead of appearing to jump to wild conclusions. The majority of said conclusions, however, are based on an incredibly deep and complex series of hundreds of thousands of interconnected ideas, theories, information and observations. I don't know how to take that from my head and put it on paper without trying to explain it in its entirety.
Last edited:
Maybe it's not as much about the preference but about personal abilities in using certain senses, being able to integrate the data, as well as the culture in which a person was raised. More or less we are the products of our environment.
Even though we try to put stuff into categories all the time to be able to keep a better track and understanding, any category is a rough approximation of the reality. Our languages are not ideal and cannot express with symbols exactly how we feel and what we think the same way as numbers in math are symbols for description of the reality as we perceive it, even though the modern science is reaching new heights sooner or later we will have to face the limitations of the artificial symbols that we created and transcend the categories.
P.S. I don't think that it is possible to empirically prove anything about MBTI... Not even sure what empirical evidence could be. Just recorded words (and biases) of people? And these tend to change Psychology once every decade or two. It's called as a "liquid" science for a reason.