Carl-Richard

Thank you very much! ? Yeah, it's really all about finding your truest/best self.

That is another thing I'm skeptical about. What exactly qualifies as a cognitive function seems like an infinite sea of possibilities. Thank you! It didn't feel like effort though. It was a pure joy writing it. It was like I was channeling something ?

Interesting. Want to read my favorite topic "How to develop Intrinsic Health" and tell me what you see? Pls? I think that is the most accurate representation of myself imo. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/78774-how-to-develop-intrinsic-health/#comment-1100296

Who is to say my Fe isn't higher than Leo's? Who is the real INTP then? ?

Let's just ignore that ~40% of my tests had Ti dominance. How convenient Can you predict my future now?

I've tested myself a dozen times with various test (MBTI and cognitive functions), and so far I'm always right in between INFP and INTP, slightly favoring Fi. That is also another thing that doesn't make much sense. How can I be two types? ??? Who decides when my slight Fi dominance qualifies as INFP? ? Not SD. I would go to Don Beck for that ;D

Then you might want to check out the main author of the book David Buss and see that he is listed as the 10th most cited personality psychologist ever.

He is by all means an expert in the field judging by the amount of citations he has in that book alone.

Hear it from a researcher in personality psychology... oh it's Jordan Peterson!: He is basically reciting this book verbatim (and JP is cited many times in it): https://www.amazon.com/Personality-Psychology-Domains-Knowledge-Nature/dp/1259870499 Beautiful book for college students btw.

Then why are you thinking up hypotheticals and not linking stats? Btw, guess my type Oh, verifiable statistics? Now we're talking. Whip em out!

Do it! Prove all the university books wrong ? Do it!

Another misunderstanding solipsism thread. Here is an idea: instead of calling it "solipsism" (solus = alone, ipse = self), call it "unipsism" (unus = one, ipse = self), because there is only one self, and the misunderstanding comes from assuming there are multiple selves. There are no other selves to not be conscious. Everything is conscious-ness.

I'm sure there is a lot of logic behind it. For example, surely the seasons affect behavior, and the mother's behavior surely affects fetal development, and fetal development is crucial for future development, so your date of birth could certainly have something to do with personality. However, the question is if it's a significant factor for predicting said things or not, and that can be tested, and here MBTI fails just as much as star signs do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, that's an odd combo (or maybe not) ?

I know the differences. It's just confusing when it's used interchangeably all the time (MBTI is based on the functions after all). I'm also starting to think that the word "typology" is used in a different way to describe Jung's functions than MBTI's personality types, which means that some of the criticism in my first post doesn't apply to Jung.

Did Jung combine the cognitive functions to create some similar typology to MBTI (e.g. "INTP" etc.)? If so, how would you describe the differences between the two? Is there anything known about the predictive utility of such a Jungian typology? True. But how do you explain how Big 5 has a high predictive utility while for example MBTI has none? I can point out what a normal distribution and a bimodal distribution looks like, and that's pretty much it ? Trying to go beyond that understanding was a sophistic move, and I feel ashamed now ? Next semester though

Woops. I haven't actually taken "proper" statistics yet ? Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that given a scale of 1-10 of any given personality trait, most people score around a 5, and very few people score on the extremes (e.g. 1 or 9). If instead most people scored either 1 or 9 and almost nobody scored around a 5, then that would make a better case for a typology. For one thing, it has to do with reproducibility. If you want to make your own Big 5, you can follow the same steps and predictably arrive at the same 5 traits. The Lexical hypothesis is also a very parsimonious starting point: ("any significant individual difference, such as a central personality trait, will be encoded into the natural-language lexicon; that is, there will be a term to describe it in any or all of the languages of the world.") This seems to matter, because it's a model with high predictability. MBTI has no predictability.

The binomial probabilities approximated by the normal curve represent a percentage of the population scoring low to high on a trait.

Then you can tell Thisintegrated to stop using the two interchangeably. I simply went along with it.

@thisintegrated You're making it sound like personality theory is something people do and not scientists do ? I tried to dumb it down instead of screaming into the void like I did the last 3 times I talked about this. So much for ease of communication ?

Is it a scientific failure, or is it a failure of laymen vocabulary? True. That's what I said What I said is there are many personality models that are more empirically and structurally sound than MBTI. There are also many domains of personality psychology (the cognitive domain is one out of seven) and many highly useful models (e.g. many in the evo-bio and emotion domain). It's all superceded by Big 5 though in terms of empirical backing.

What you're really saying is that it's not Big 5 that is flawed – it's communication that is flawed. That is true. Accurate communication is tedious, which is why people write books. It is "taught" in psychology classes, in the sense that it's briefly mentioned in the introductory personality curriculum and explained why it's not up to par with other theories (by bringing up the points I've mentioned). The reason it's a popular model is because it's rather normatively neutral (no one type is particularly "negative"), which is why companies like to use it, and like you said, it's easy to communicate.

Jung didn't use a structured empirical methodology to come up with the functions, unlike say Cattel's 16PF and Big 5, which used factor analysis and the Lexical hypothesis. Rather, it was an idea based on his clinical experience and general knowledge. Additionally, it's a typology ("types"), which is something personality psychology has moved away from. Personality is polygenetic (unlike say blue/brown eyes or male/female), which means that there exists a huge variation of personalities (like a spectrum). In other words, you can score higher or lower on a trait, but it's not either/or ('this' or 'that' type). The technical term for this is "normal vs. bimodal distribution". If you're asking for a personality typology, then I couldn't name you one. If you're asking for a personality trait theory, then Big 5. The empirical data on that one is unmatched. Separate from the typology aspect, I think Jung's cognitive functions are still useful as descriptions of cognition and behavior, like personality adjectives (just very precise ones). For example, instead of thinking of frequent use of Ti and Ne as an indication of the "INTP" type, you can just leave it at "frequent use of Ti and Ne".

There is a reason you don't learn about it in personality psychology ;D