Carl-Richard

If we're limiting ourselves to intuitives (which seems most relevant), it's ENTP, INTP, INFJ, ENFJ. (Sensors: ISFJ, ESFJ, ESTP, ISTP). I gotta say it's interesting how ENTP and INTP both are TiFe + NeSi and make up 55.97% of the votes

Speaking of statistics, did you misspeak earlier or is this wrong?: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/4spc12/population_by_cognitive_functions/ Seems to be the opposite of what you said.

I know. Same with your statistic about "Ni and Se are twice as likely as Ne and Si." Why not ENTP?

Maybe, but if we can pull and combine random statistics like that, isn't INFJ the least common type? INFJ 1.5% of population and ENTP 3.2% of population according to one source, meaning ENTP is twice as likely. What weighs more in this case? Your statistics or my statistics? Btw, I just saw a comment on JP's page: "BIELO: This page is a confusion" (4 upvotes)

I guess this kind of thinking works for democratic elections, but for "scientific truths", not so much. Let's say we polled "Is Jordan Peterson an INFJ?" Yes: 44.03% No: 55.97% You can only be one type, right? If it's 55.97% in favor for "not that type", then that's a problem.

50% is not "consensus". Beethoven has 72.87% on top voted type. That's more like consensus. ~75% is a good figure (Oldschool Runescape uses it as the passing limit for their polls for newly suggested game content ).

The first two people that came to mind were Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. https://www.personality-database.com/profile/11583/sam-harris-western-philosophy-mbti-personality-type https://www.personality-database.com/profile/11071/jordan-peterson-psychology-neuroscience-mbti-personality-type Jordan Peterson has 1919 votes, and the top voted type has only 845 votes (44.03%). Sam Harris has 281 votes, and the top voted type has 142 votes (50.53%).

Many profiles I've seen are pretty divided.

Classic.

By past/future, you mean thinking. By experiencing, you mean perceiving. Experience is beyond all that.

That's also my view, but this changes when you start talking about typology (and claims about the frequency one uses the functions). Once you start talking about correlations to behavior (and correlating the functions with each other), you're in the realm of science. What are the justifications for combining these functions into types?

Got it.

Are we not talking to other people? ? (see what I did there? ?) I was making an analogy to something familar and not too far-fetched. Baby steps. Somebody else can drop the nukes

Does my body have a surface? That is the border between inside and outside that most people are used to. Empathy extends this boundary. Awakening expands the boundary to infinity.

I'm trying to break through the idea that our body-minds are isolated vehicles that contain experience on the inside and that the outside world is dead and inert. The assumption that the outside is dead and the inside is alive and that only this body-mind contains this aliveness, is a major cause for this confusion. Empathy is the experience of breaking through some of this apparent separation.

They're merely descriptions that have to be operationalized using some alternative measurement (e.g. a questionnaire/test, physiological measurements, brain activity etc.) in order to become "empirically useful" (predicting behaviors etc.). You do this by seeing if these measurements correlate with the behaviors you want to investigate (e.g. "does depression correlate with lower work performance?" "Depression" can be represented by say a measurement like serotonin levels in the brain. These measurements are often crude and limited, but at least they allow you to find correlations that can help predict future behaviors. Me going on a tirade here earlier was most probably based on a misunderstanding (which I just recently acknowledged – see the previous comment if you missed the edit), unless you want to clarify that, and I'm sorry for that.

@no_name Let's try again: So by MBTI, you're referring to the test developed by Myers and Briggs. By cognitive functions, you're referring to the cognitive functions (e.g. Ne and Ti) and the way they combine to form types (e.g. ENTP). If that's correct, then that clears things up. I thought all along that you separated the functions from the types. Combine that with the fact that when people say MBTI, they often refer to the types and not any particular test, it really screws things up. My bad. Now, by which metrics, if not by using a test to find correlations with observed behavior, are the cognitive functions scientifically valid?

MBTI were derived from the cognitive functions after all. Maybe this has something to do with it? How can you know if the cognitive functions are flawed or not?

I keep repeating it because you keep refusing to engage with it. I've already acknowledged that my knowledge of things like statistics is limited, but I don't see how that should make you unable to recognize the existence of some stats. Can you atleast acknowledge the fact that if you search "MBTI is unscientific" on Google, it gives you pages upon pages of relevant articles? Is this fact not the least bit relevant?

Right now I'm in studies mode, because that is what MBTI is lacking. On the other hand, if I'm talking about say non-duality, I would be surprised if I ever cite anybody.

That's an interesting reframing of the topic.

Why should I? I didn't make Big 5 or invent the field of psychology, so of course I'm citing other sources when I can. This is not about me. I like psychology. I'm studying it in university. Great for you that you apparently know more about it than me and feel like criticizing my character. However, I still don't see why I should prefer MBTI over Big 5. Sounds like Ti is something virtuous. Explains why so many people mistype themselves as an INTP.

How do you explain the fact that you can experience what other people are feeling through empathy?

When your mind doesn't shut up.

Stop acting like everything is a big word. Predictive utility/validity is arguably "the" criteria for a scientifically sound model in psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits Yes. It's easy to find out if you're a Cancer or not, but how do you find out if it matters?