Advanced AI-driven MBTI personality test

[Joshe]

5 hours ago, Ramanujan said:

the downside of being INTJ is pretty fucked up too

how little energy we have , we live in a room most of the time , our poor social skills , not going out , having no energy to protect ourself from physical agression etc etc

Yes, it's not as awesome as the descriptions make it seem. My energy is definitely dwindling with age. I've accepted my poor social skills. As for going out, I partied my ass off in my teens and 20s and got more than my fill of social games. I moved around a good bit and always wound up in a group of friends, but I don't enjoy that anymore, so now, like you say, I'm holed up in a box. As far as protecting ourselves from physical agression, I found out early I couldn't fight worth a fuck. lol, so I have to be careful not to be confrontational to the wrong person. Many "alpha male" types feel threatened by me for some reason and try to start shit, even if I never speak to them. That's another problem solved just by not going out. Many problems solved by not going out.

For me, physical world and social games are the Achilles' heel. I used to work construction and I had a serious problem with remembering where I put things in the physical world. I can remember where things are placed internally, but not externally. That's probably my biggest complaint with this condition. It's too easy to neglect the physical world for too long and then it all comes crashing down like a huge wave of overwhelm. 

The thing I like best about it is the fierce independence. Like, I don't need anything outside myself to be happy, except for an efficient and rejuvenating physical environment. Also, there has always been a strong internal locus of control and when I want something, I can work endlessly for it, nose to the grindstone. It sometimes feels neurotic but I'm fine with the tradeoffs. I'll take it over some time-wasting Fe bullshit... I just wish the physical world wasn't so difficult to manage. 

Edited July 1 by Joshe

[aurum]

MBTI is not a serious model.

You do not have an innate cognitive preference. 

[Joshe]

15 minutes ago, aurum said:

MBTI is not a serious model.

You do not have an innate cognitive preference. 

Edited July 1 by Joshe

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Yes, unserious models can still be useful in a very limited context.

Astrology can also be useful for certain people.

[Joshe]

48 minutes ago, aurum said:

useful in a very limited context

You're wrong bro. Until you do a deep dive into Jung's cognitive functions, you're just speaking out of your ass. You're rejecting the entire foundation of Jungian cognitive functions, seemingly without knowing it. 

The whole point is to show patterns of cognition. Do you think patterns of cognition do not exist? 

Do some people have a natural tendency for abstract thought while others, more concrete? Do some people have more mastery over the physical world than others? Do some people value social harmony more than others? 

If the answer to these is “yes”, which is obvious, then we’re already talking about stable cognitive tendencies.

When you look at those tendencies in clusters, patterns emerge. That’s what Jung did, which is what MBTI is built on. If you explore it in earnest, you might actually learn something.

I have an ISTJ mom. If you go read the description of an ISTJ, you will know more about my mom than she does, without ever having met her. You will know she religiously adheres to self-imposed routines, does not like abstract thought, and hates change and spontaneity. Because that's how ISTJs are.

How is it the ISTJ description explains her to a T? 

Patterns bro. 

These behaviors and preferences cluster for a reason and they offer a ton of explanatory power. If you can’t see the utility in that, the limitation is in you, not the model. 

Edited July 1 by Joshe

[Joshe]

For example:

You have to ignorant of the model to say it's mostly useless. 

https://1lib.sk/book/2632202/5e45bf/psychological-types.html

 

Edited July 1 by Joshe

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Joshe said:

How is it the ISTJ description explains her to a T? 

How is it my horoscope explains me to a T???

[Joshe]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

How is it my horoscope explains me to a T???

It doesn't. To equate the functions with astrology and horoscopes is just proving you don't have a clue about the model. Most likely out of some groupthink, scientifically-dogmatic knee-jerk rejection of the model and/or just not being aware of the foundation it's built on. 

You are likely operating on the flawed notion of the 4-letter dichotomies. In that case, you're absolutely right. MBTI is an absolutely bullshit model if that's all you know about it. 

[Joshe]

@Natasha Tori Maru You might like Dear Kristen. She's an Aussie. This is one of her more serious videos but she does a lot of funny skit-style vids that I like. 

Edited July 1 by Joshe

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

It doesn't

That's just your opinion.

I could make a very strong argument for why it does.

[Joshe]

18 minutes ago, aurum said:

That's just your opinion.

I could make a very strong argument for why it does.

I understand your point, but you're wrong. I've watched the movie "23". I'm well aware of the mind's tendency to find patterns and the motivated reasoning it uses to add meaning to them. I'm very skeptical when patterns first emerge and I'm often the first one to call out bullshit patterns. Horoscopes and star signs are bullshit, from what I can tell. I've gone deep into the cognitive functions and confirmed the patterns are real. 

You could use the fallacy exemplified in the movie "23" to dismiss all patterns if you want. 

Edited July 1 by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 hours ago, aurum said:

Yes, unserious models can still be useful in a very limited context.

Astrology can also be useful for certain people.

I suggest looking into the cognitive functions behind MBTI - Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers developed MBTI based on Carl Jung's cognitive functions and his work.

The cognitive functions are a useful frame for how we process information and make decisions.

All models have their drawbacks, but equating MBTI/cognitive functions to astrology is doing these systems of understanding a disservice. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe I'll check out your links - thanks for sharing! 

[Carl-Richard]

@aurum

I have problems with necessarily tying functions together into 4-function clusters. But it's fine if you treat all the types/functions (only functions if you want to be rigorous) as statistical traits, so e.g. I'm x% INFP, x% INTP, x% ENFP, and so on (or x% Fi, x% Ti, x% Ne, x% Te, and so on). Other than that, MBTI's "type" aspect is really no more problematic than the diagnoses in DSM-5. If you e.g. have 7 symptoms of schizophrenia, not 6, then you "have" schizophrenia (or you "are" a schizophrenic). Like the diagnoses in DSM-5, MBTI is useful for describing and predicting behavior. They might not capture the entire complexity of a single individual, and indeed one individual might have several diagnoses at one time (or be just below the diagnostic threshold).

Edited July 2 by Carl-Richard

[aurum]

40 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I suggest looking into the cognitive functions behind MBTI - Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers developed MBTI based on Carl Jung's cognitive functions and his work.

The cognitive functions are a useful frame for how we process information and make decisions.

All models have their drawbacks, but equating MBTI/cognitive functions to astrology is doing these systems of understanding a disservice. 

I have looked into the cognitive functions.

I see many problems.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

I have looked into the cognitive functions.

I see many problems.

I am aware of a few myself. I still put forth it is a useful frame - the whole thing isn't a problem per se.

Unlike Astrology, which is literally founded on nothing but the fumes of woo woo

 

[aurum]

20 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am aware of a few myself. I still put forth it is a useful frame - the whole thing isn't a problem per se.

Unlike Astrology, which is literally founded on nothing but the fumes of woo woo

That sounds like a double standard to me.

Astrology isn't also useful?

Have you seen how complex astrology can get? How do you know it's all woo woo?

You could take an entire course on it and still only be a beginner:

 

[aurum]

32 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But it's fine if you treat all the types/functions (only functions if you want to be rigorous) as statistical traits, so e.g. I'm x% INFP, x% INTP, x% ENFP, and so on (or x% Fi, x% Ti, x% Ne, x% Te, and so on).

It is not fine.

Statistical traits are better than not, but that does not solve MBTIs verticality problems. Nor its lack of self-reflexivity.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, aurum said:

It is not fine.

Statistical traits are better than not, but that does not solve MBTIs verticality problems. Nor its lack of self-reflexivity.

What's that?

[Deziree]

7 hours ago, Joshe said:

The thing I like best about it is the fierce independence. Like, I don't need anything outside myself to be happy, except for an efficient and rejuvenating physical environment. Also, there has always been a strong internal locus of control and when I want something, I can work endlessly for it, nose to the grindstone. It sometimes feels neurotic but I'm fine with the tradeoffs. I'll take it over some time-wasting Fe bullshit... I just wish the physical world wasn't so difficult to manage. 

What's so difficult about the physical world? Meeting the wrong kind of people? You could be in nature if you want.