How MBTI Works

[Rferraris]

Well, what you say makes sense.
I think the functions, and I'm only starting to understand them, do describe an attribute. But from what I'm understanding is they are supposed to be preferences, and you are saying they aren't strong enough to you to be meaningful.

So maybe somewhere in between.
I think it's good to have FE and that could mean you save the kids cause you feel comparison. Where a sociopath supposedly is devoid compassion and only demonstrates it because they know they are supposed to. Maybe that's TE.
I don't know, but your nausea regarding people acting like they have magic abilities would get on my nerves.
I just don't deal or have run into it that much.

So I would say avoid the stuff and people that live in this alternate universe , but I wouldn't throw it all away.

I thought, when I first came here, the point of this was to learn about your personality through MBTI what others had to contribute. This forum, and it's the only one I know, and the only one I've posted stuff to, so forgive my lack of experience, but it does come across like a high school social club. And it loses any value from a personal development perspective.

I mean I understand the therapeutic value to talking openly without consequences and getting validation, but for me, if that ever happened, it'd be with voices on my iPhone from people I don't know. So if they got all mighty about how magical they are and saw three unicorns today, I'd probably run for cover.

 

[Paladin-X]

Personally, I believe there is truth to the cognitive functions (or Psychological Types as Jung labelled them). It is not so much about what is explained specifically, but the logic behind the explanations. I believe the descriptions of the types and the functions are observed tendencies rather than a precise prediction/explanation of specific behaviours or personality.

The basic gist of the functions as I interpret them are:

Se - literal/concrete point of view
Si - comparative point of view
Ne - divergent point of view
Ni - convergent point of view

Te - rules/will/logic as defined from without
Ti - rules/will/logic as defined from within
Fe - values/motivation/feelings as inspired from without
Fi - values/motivation/feelings as inspired from within

NOTE: I realize these responses are overly simplified and ambiguous, but I cannot think of better words to use at the moment.

I'd also like to point out that much of the confusion that people experience with MBTI is based on the layperson trying to understand what other laypeople have interpreted and written on the Internet. The MBTI is supposed to be conducted by a certified administrator, not read off of some webpage that some person wrote. Just sayin...

In any case, I can certainly understand where one might question the validity of the MBTI. I have done so myself on occasion. Regardless, I believe in my interpretations of it, at least so much as the basic framework behind the descriptions. I stand by it. But to each his/her own.

 

[barbad0s]

[MENTION=5437]Paladin-X[/MENTION] What do you have to say about, or what have you read about, the logic for why the function "stackings" are the way that they are? I wonder how much of that is logical or based on accurate observations.

 

[Paladin-X]

That's a good question [MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION]. I remember a similar post that you made in your type me thread. It has pushed me to try and figure it out since then, believe it or not.

Though I do not understand the rhyme or reason to why the stack order works the way it does, I do believe it works that way. Jung explained that the dominant function will be of an attitude (introverted or extraverted) and a function type (perceiving or judging). The auxiliary is the opposite attitude and function type. I have a theory that the mind and body largely works on the basis of dichotomous pairs. This theory transcends type theory.

Also, I do not believe the type order is based on a spectrum either. It is far more rigid or black and white than that. For example, it is not that ENFPs are essentially the same as an INFP but it's just that they use Ne more and Fi less. There is an actual distinct difference between the two types. An ENFP is actually more 'P-ish' go with the flow. INFPs are actually far more decisive, though they appear to be more go with the flow. (Sorry. It's difficult for me to explain it on a forum. I would be better at it in a one on one conversation.)

So my belief in stack order is based on Jung's explanation, observation of said explanation in others and introspectively, as well as it fits nicely with my theory.

So, the top two functions, are 'you' for the most part. Then there is the shadow. Or what I like to call the alter-ego. (Still investigating whether the bottom two of four functions is the 'shadow' or the bottom four of eight. So for all intents and purposes, I will henceforth refer to the bottom two of four as the alter-ego).

From a young age, Carl Jung seemed to notice two distinct 'personalities' within himself that he called One and Two. His main one was his objective, intellectual side (ISTP) and the second was his darker, mysterious, intuitive side (INFJ). Looking at the function order of an ISTP - Ti + Se + Ni + Fe, this makes sense to me. Ti+Se is his default personality and lower on the totem pole is his alter-ego Ni + Fe. In my own self I have noticed that I switch between INFJ and ISTP mode. I have noticed that I'm in ISTP mode when I've become pedantic, overly analytical and obsessed with details (I can no longer see the forest, I only see 10 000 trees!).

I also had this discussion with an INFP buddy of mine and he found this to be true in his own self. He realized that there are times when he turns to rules and structure like an ISTJ (and other qualities, but I'm not going into all the details). He was able to finally make sense of some of his behaviours which seem to be opposite to his normal ones.

Furthermore, I do believe it is possible to use the functions out of order. However, I believe that this creates dysfunction. (And this part goes into my theories in mental health issues.) For example, I believe that Ne dominant/auxiliary types that engage entirely in there extraverted functions, experience a manic or hypomanic episode. Which funnily enough, I once came across some research that showed a majority of bipolar patients were Ne types.

I have ideas that go way beyond this, so I'll stop my musings there for now.

 

[Gaze]

I also had this discussion with an INFP buddy of mine and he found this to be true in his own self. He realized that there are times when he turns to rules and structure like an ISTJ

Could you explain this in more detail since this is pretty much how I think. How do the functions explain these differences?

 

[Solongo]

I wouldn't say it's fretting. It's a safe haven community for all those that feel adrift. For all types I would say; but more specifically INFJs have a side that is hidden in the everyday world. That aspect of the INFJ personality still needs an outlet and expression and needs to be nurtured and somehow MBTI helps in this expression.

 

[Tin Man]

It's a fun little theory but has little or no scientific validity. I don't really have a problem with the MBTI but with those who take it far too seriously. I've come across people who believe it can explain personality disorders and can map out our entire lives. They believe a personality is static and changing your type means you're either a fool or a liar.

The MBTI can be used as a starting block to understanding yourself but that's all. I don't believe the moniker INTJ describes who I am but knowing it has caused me to take a more meaningful look at my inner world. Unfortunately that inner world is a black mire filled with hatred and rage.

 

[88chaz88]

We've figured out there's a whole universe out there, and yet we're arguing over what shade of blue the Earth is.

 

[rawr]

Glad you brought this thread up; this has bugged me for a while.

MBTI is meant as a broad framework, and a broad framework only. It is a tool or stepping-stone on understanding yourself and others. It is in no way very specific, nor can it be liberally applied to everyone.

As C. Jung said "Every person is an exception to the rules."

Also, personality psychology is much a soft science. Especially with MBTI, there is no strong factual or scientific backing.

Everyone is unique. While much behaviour and many social tendencies are shared by multiple persons, to follow MBTI so strictly and stress over it is to run the risk of pigeon-holing and limiting yourself and others.

You are who you are. Life is much more complex than a set of 16 types. And it is more fluid than that as well. If we are to use MBTI to help assist in our understanding of people, we must adjust our calculations for the complexity, fluidity, and general nature of life, as it does not follow a limited, broad, set system.

/rant

(sorry guys)

 

[Faye]

MBTI isn't inductively based. It is deductively based because you have a spectrum of possibilities that everyone necessarily falls into. In other words, there is no way to falsify MBTI as a whole because any prediction MBTI makes that is wrong is explained not by the failure of the theory but by the failure to utilize the theory adequately (i.e. mistyping someone). A theory is supposed to be falsifiable in order to be scientific, and the predictive efficacy of the theory is supposed to be put to the test.

However, I like MBTI because it is a useful heuristic for understanding people and helps you to understand people. Just because MBTI is not empirically meaningful in the strict sense does not mean that it is not meaningful. Who cares about empirical meaning? Maybe there are other, better types of meaning. Your life does not have empirical meaning.


The best MBTI can do is to find falsification within its own paradigm (i.e. make predictions about INFJs and then see if they are falsified or not). Nobody will ever be able to create a falsifiable personality theory because the theory would have to make predictions about humans, but in order to that, it would have to have a standard to measure humanity against. However, a standard could only be created by making predictions about particular groups of humans or some humans. As a result, the personality theory would be inadequate for explaining human behavior. Theories are typically falisified within paradigms, and since MBTI is a personality theory paradigm, you cannot go outside of it to seek justification; however, some people on wikipedia are apparently critiquing MBTI on this shortcoming when, in actuality, every scientific theory has this problem. Theories can only be justified within paradigms, and I would say that MBTI is more of a paradigm than a theory.

 

[Shaqie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA

 

[Paladin-X]

A theory is supposed to be falsifiable in order to be scientific, and the predictive efficacy of the theory is supposed to be put to the test.

Hi Dragon, sorry to be nitpicky, but technically that is an inaccurate statement. A hypothesis is meant to be falsifiable. A theory cannot be proven or disproven. If it were proven, then it would no longer be theory, but fact. If it were disproven, then it would be false.

 

[Paladin-X]

Could you explain this in more detail since this is pretty much how I think. How do the functions explain these differences?

I haven't forgotten you. I just have a hard time remembering details.

 

[Faye]

Hi Dragon, sorry to be nitpicky, but technically that is an inaccurate statement. A hypothesis is meant to be falsifiable. A theory cannot be proven or disproven. If it were proven, then it would no longer be theory, but fact. If it were disproven, then it would be false.

I'll nitpick back at ya!

You say first that theory cannot be proven or disproven, and then you give the conditions of what a theory would become if it were proven or disproven. So I'm confused as to your meaning.

Can science produce facts? Science can produce scientific "facts", but do these facts never cease to be theories. For instance, we could say that gravity is a scientific fact, but we would still say that it is a scientific theory as well. A hypothesis is used to conduct an experiment to test a theory in an attempt to falsify the theory. So for instance, I could theorize that it always rains where I live. Then I could hypothesize (make a prediction) that it will be raining outside if I measure it systematically. I do the experiment and go outside on a day when it is not raining, and thus my hypothesis is wrong and my theory has been falsified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Wikipedia says it applies to both hypothesis and theory.

I didn't pay attention in philosophy of science, but I got a little out of it. I think you can never absolutely prove any theory due to the problem of induction, but you can falsify theories. Falsifiability was Karl Popper's attempt to circumnavigate the problem of induction.

 

[Paladin-X]

This is the explanation given in my lecture notes for Psych class:

Experiments Module
Theory: system of interrelated ideas that is used to explain a set of observations.
Hypothesis: a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables.


In my second Psych class:

Research and Methods Module
Fact: An objective statement, usually based on direct observation, that reasonable observers agree is true.
Theory: A hypothetical account of how and why a phenomenon occurs.
Hypothesis: A testable prediction made by a theory.

You say first that theory cannot be proven or disproven, and then you give the conditions of what a theory would become if it were proven or disproven. So I'm confused as to your meaning.

Sorry, I am confused by your confusion.

 

[Faye]

This is the explanation given in my lecture notes for Psych class:

Experiments Module
Theory: system of interrelated ideas that is used to explain a set of observations.
Hypothesis: a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables.


In my second Psych class:

Research and Methods Module
Fact: An objective statement, usually based on direct observation, that reasonable observers agree is true.
Theory: A hypothetical account of how and why a phenomenon occurs.
Hypothesis: A testable prediction made by a theory.




Sorry, I am confused by your confusion.

Just don't study the philosophy of science because it will ruin everything you know and love about science that you learn in other classes.

I.e, don't read this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

 

[Tactical Panda]

Suspend human rights and I can get you the experiment results, assuming I want to ditch my conscience.

Has it occurred to you that human testing has various societal roadblocks in place that prevent unbridled progress?

Clinical results from human experiments sometimes come at a cost. Dissection isn't something that you can do to something that is alive and well enough to continue resistance.

Results that are not definitive is a welcome cost compared to the lines we would need to cross to quickly obtain some things perhaps more definitive. MBTI currently operates within an ethical code. And I personally consider this a better thing than the less considerate alternative.

 

[barbad0s]

Suspend human rights and I can get you the experiment results, assuming I want to ditch my conscience.

Has it occurred to you that human testing has various societal roadblocks in place that prevent unbridled progress?

Clinical results from human experiments sometimes come at a cost. Dissection isn't something that you can do to something that is alive and well enough to continue resistance.

Results that are not definitive is a welcome cost compared to the lines we would need to cross to quickly obtain some things perhaps more definitive. MBTI currently operates within an ethical code. And I personally consider this a better thing than the less considerate alternative.

LOL what is this. Where did I ever say we should cut people open? And how would that help anything?

Is this post a joke?

 

[barbad0s]

...I would say that MBTI is more of a paradigm than a theory.

Definitely.

However, I like MBTI because it is a useful heuristic for understanding people and helps you to understand people. Just because MBTI is not empirically meaningful in the strict sense does not mean that it is not meaningful. Who cares about empirical meaning? Maybe there are other, better types of meaning. Your life does not have empirical meaning.

I agree that MBTI in a broad sense is useful for doing this.

With the type descriptions and categorizations, they work and help us understand people because their results directly mirror how people answer the test questions.

It seems to me though that when we get down to the nitty gritty details--the way that functions manifest, which is the backbone of what even the paradigm part of it is supposed to be--seems to have weak or no rationale. Even if there isn't much empirical evidence for it, there should be some attempt at achieving that or having some sort of rational explanation for it. Right now it seems like the paradigm was kind of haphazardly put together.

Though I do not understand the rhyme or reason to why the stack order works the way it does, I do believe it works that way. Jung explained that the dominant function will be of an attitude (introverted or extraverted) and a function type (perceiving or judging). The auxiliary is the opposite attitude and function type. I have a theory that the mind and body largely works on the basis of dichotomous pairs. This theory transcends type theory.

I did read about him basing the system off of this concept. I can agree with you on the idea with the physical world and human systems working based on dichotomous pairs. But that doesn't mean that the functions as Jung described them necessarily express themselves in the mind dichotomously. The brain does work in split or compartmentalized ways a lot of the time, but the way Jung's functions are expressed in the brain may not be so isolated by the brain in such a way that our brain functioning capabilities would produce them as dichotomized. We don't know enough to say that yet.

Also, I do not believe the type order is based on a spectrum either. It is far more rigid or black and white than that. For example, it is not that ENFPs are essentially the same as an INFP but it's just that they use Ne more and Fi less. There is an actual distinct difference between the two types. An ENFP is actually more 'P-ish' go with the flow. INFPs are actually far more decisive, though they appear to be more go with the flow. (Sorry. It's difficult for me to explain it on a forum. I would be better at it in a one on one conversation.)

So my belief in stack order is based on Jung's explanation, observation of said explanation in others and introspectively, as well as it fits nicely with my theory.

Hm.. okay. The MBTI types not exactly existing on a spectrum thing is totally congruent with Jung's stack explanation, yes. But... as you said... your belief in it is all based on your own observations and not on empirical evidence.

So, the top two functions, are 'you' for the most part. Then there is the shadow. Or what I like to call the alter-ego. (Still investigating whether the bottom two of four functions is the 'shadow' or the bottom four of eight. So for all intents and purposes, I will henceforth refer to the bottom two of four as the alter-ego).

From a young age, Carl Jung seemed to notice two distinct 'personalities' within himself that he called One and Two. His main one was his objective, intellectual side (ISTP) and the second was his darker, mysterious, intuitive side (INFJ). Looking at the function order of an ISTP - Ti + Se + Ni + Fe, this makes sense to me. Ti+Se is his default personality and lower on the totem pole is his alter-ego Ni + Fe. In my own self I have noticed that I switch between INFJ and ISTP mode. I have noticed that I'm in ISTP mode when I've become pedantic, overly analytical and obsessed with details (I can no longer see the forest, I only see 10 000 trees!).

I also had this discussion with an INFP buddy of mine and he found this to be true in his own self. He realized that there are times when he turns to rules and structure like an ISTJ (and other qualities, but I'm not going into all the details). He was able to finally make sense of some of his behaviours which seem to be opposite to his normal ones.....

I've read about this shadow stuff too. To me, it makes sense, more than an idea of having some defined alter ego within us, that the way we behave would naturally create some sort of equilibrium/averaging out, to create a balanced, well-functioning personality. I would think most healthy people would be like this. Again, the examples you've given are all just subjective, descriptive observations, all of which are solely based on self-assessment.

 

[Paladin-X]

Hm.. okay. The MBTI types not exactly existing on a spectrum thing is totally congruent with Jung's stack explanation, yes. But... as you said... your belief in it is all based on your own observations and not on empirical evidence.

I'm not sure what you are getting at [MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION]. I have already said that everything I know is based on my own understanding of this stuff. I never claimed empirical evidence anywhere. Furthermore, the lack of empirical evidence, does not thus conclude that the theory is invalid. I see a lack of evidence in disproving the theory. This does not mean that you are wrong.

To no one in particular:
I form my own opinions and knowledge. Empirical evidence does not mean much to me. All of modern psychology is based on empirical evidence. And they have a lot of shit wrong. This is also based upon my own 'subjective' knowledge. But it does not mean I'm wrong about it. Half of the research I'm shown in class, I can always see confounding third variables that researchers did not take into account. Also, I have been through hell and back trying to seek help for my own issues and because I cannot easily demonstrate observable proof, I fall through the cracks. I lie in that 1% margin of every statistic. So I have to fight ten times as hard to get the help I need, which in turn compounds my problems. There are many other sufferers that have similar or worse stories.

Also, a lot of 'empirical evidence' within psychology is based on self-reporting. It is impossible to observe certain inner workings of one's mind, therefore self-reporting is the only known way to measure such things.

I don't really care if any of you believe in MBTI or not. I respect all of your opinions and beliefs and do not judge them. Although I've seen this 'subjective' and 'empirical evidence' and 'scientific' stuff thrown around too much. I do not question anyone's belief or disbelief in MBTI, I only question the supporting arguments behind that conclusion. The conclusion is irrelevant to me.


[MENTION=834]Dragon[/MENTION]
I have no love for science. I detest the fact that I will have to spend the next 10 to 20 years in school and conducting research to prove 'empirically' what I already know. I know how to help those who suffer from mental disorders. Everything I know is based on already known and accepted ideas, I just need them to look at it a different way. I know I sound like an arrogant jerk-off, but I don't know how to word that in an acceptable way. It is frustrating to not know how to communicate properly.